Standing Committee E

[Mr. Christopher Chopein the Chair]

Clause 14

Proposals for discontinuance of schools maintained by local education authority

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 100, in clause 14, page 10, line 25, at end insert—
‘(aa) the effect of the discontinuance of the school upon the ability of the local education authority, and upon the governing bodies of other schools maintained by that authority, to continue to perform and carry out the duties and functions in relation to education imposed upon them by this or any other enactment,'.—[Mr. Chaytor.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Christopher Chope: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing amendment No. 31, in clause 14, page 10, line 26, leave out
‘to the local education authority'.

Jacqui Smith: Welcome back to the Chair, Mr. Chope. I hope that you have noted the splendid progress we made this morning. We worked jolly hard and had just got to amendmentNo. 100, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). He rightly made the argument that the impact of a school’s closure will be felt beyond that school.
The amendment concerns the effect of the closure of a rural primary school, and the ability of other local schools and authorities to continue to perform their duties in relation to education. That goes to the heart of the new role for local authorities as commissioners of education services. I agree with my hon. Friend that local authorities will need to consider the impact on other schools, parents, pupils and the community as part of their important strategic role in planning education provision. That will inform their decisions in planning how many schools their area needs, where and how big they should be, what kind of schools would serve their area best, and who the schools should serve.
Local authorities will draw up strategic plans for the pattern of schools in their area as part of their children and young people’s plans. To do that, they willmap what is needed in their area according to demographics, diversity and demand for high standards. They will ensure that there is a sufficient supply of places by letting popular schools expand or federate, closing schools that are poor or failing to improve, and inviting proposals to open new schools in some of the ways that we have discussed. We expect local authorities to work with schools in a spirit of partnership as they manage their schools. The best local authorities already do that, and the new role for local authorities as commissioners of education services will extend that throughout the country.
I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend regarding the strategic context for local authorities within which individual closure proposals will be made, and that he will therefore withdraw his amendment.
I turn to amendment No. 31, to which the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton(Mr. Gibb) spoke. I understand the difficulties of closure decisions for some parents. Any decision to close a school is often worrying for parents, and the subject of considerable concern and argument. However, as I said when I talked about the factors that need to be considered, transport considerations must already be considered when the final decisions on proposals are made.
If a rural primary school closes, the transport costs for displaced pupils will, in many cases, have to be met by the local authority, which has a duty to provide transport for children who attend their nearest suitable school if it is beyond the statutory walking distance of 2 miles for primary-aged pupils under eight, and3 miles for children aged eight and over. Local authorities also have to make arrangements to transport children who live within walking distance but for whom there is no route to walk in reasonablesafety. Provisions elsewhere in the Bill will extend rights to transport to children from low-income groups, including, for this age group, an entitlement to transport where the school is more than 2 miles from the child’s home. Therefore, when a rural primary school closes, parents who live nearby and drive their children to school might gain an entitlement to free travel for their children under the arrangements outlined above.
Given the potential economies of scale of a local authority organising transport instead of parents driving their children to school, the amendment could, by requiring a consideration of overall transport costs, have the perverse effect of shifting the balance of the argument towards closure.

Nick Gibb: I wonder whether the Minister has taken into account the provisions of the Bill that could give local authorities the right to charge some categories of parents for school transport? That, in essence, is a cost to the community, albeit not to the local authority. It is a cost to somebody, and it will have to be met, but the clause does not allow that fact to be taken into account.

Jacqui Smith: The provisions that the hon. Gentleman refers to relate to the suggested pathfinder proposals, under which local authorities will be able to develop better school transport for everyone within their area. Although that is an important development, it is not a fundamental change in the charging regime. In fact, the balance is likely to be as I suggested. Although I am sympathetic to the implications for individual parents—and they should of course be borne in mind when making decisions about school closures, particularly of rural primary schools—I am not convinced that the amendment would achieve the objectives that the hon. Gentleman set out. Indeed, it could potentially have a perverse effect on the decision. I therefore hope that he will not press the amendment.

David Chaytor: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for that clarification. However, the clause remains unsatisfactory inasmuch as it gives specific attention to rural primary schools. It lists a number of the criteria that should apply to rural primary schools but does not list them all because, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, the question of standards, parental preference and diversity are also factors in closure decisions. However, the criteria that apply to rural primary schools could apply equally to urban primary schools or secondary schools.
A powerful argument can be made for including in the Bill the criteria that apply to all school closures, primary and secondary, rural and urban. It would help the process. It would assist with the plans of local authorities and governing bodies, with the publication of closure notices, and in a public understanding of the reasons for schools closing. Generally, the process would be more efficient as a result. However, in light of my right hon. Friend’s clarification, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16

Direction requiring discontinuance of community or foundation special school

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in clause 16, page 11, line 34, at end insert—
‘(1A) No special school which caters for—
(a) children with moderate learning difficulties, or
(b) children with severe learning difficulties,
shall be discontinued by a local authority without a direction from the Secretary of State.'.

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 255, in clause 16, page 11, line 34, at end insert—
‘(1A) Before any special school is closed by direction of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that acceptable alternative provision for the children in that special school has been made.'.
No. 33, in clause 16, page 11, line 43, after ‘governors,', insert—
‘(ca) parents of children attending the school,'.
No. 34, in clause 16, page 12, line 3, at end insert
‘and shall give his reasons for such direction'.
No. 35, in clause 18, page 13, line 14, leave out ‘or discontinuance'.

John Hayes: What a great pleasure it is, Mr. Chope, to serve under your chairmanship. I shall rely on our intimate familiarity to guide us through our proceedings.
The amendments give us the opportunity to return to the subject of special educational needs. Those tabled in the names of my hon. Friends and myself, and those tabled in our names and those of Liberal Democrat Members, are relevant to the capacity of the Secretary of State to alter special needs provision, and to the proper consultation that should take place with parents on his decision to alter such provision. The clause deals with precisely those matters, but it needs to be seen in context. So, I make no apology for re-amplifying our real doubts about the commitment to special schools.
I was lucky enough last night to have dinner at the Athenaeum with a distinguished group of experts in that field, including parents of special needs children, head teachers at mainstream and special needs schools, academics, educational psychologists and others. Over a splendid meal, we had the opportunity to discuss those matters. The conclusion that emerged from our discussions, which were wide-ranging, was that educational need must be the key determinate in matching provision and children. Yet that was not always taken as an a priori assumption.
During discussion on the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, Baroness Blackstone said that the
“commitment to inclusion has been strong and constant...The potential social, moral and educational benefits are significant.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 December 2000; Vol. 620, c. 635.]
The order in which she put those benefits is interesting. Of course, we are concerned about the social, moral and cultural interests of people with learning difficulties, but their educational needs will, at times, be more significant than any cultural concerns that we might have.
It is critical that the effect on the educational potential of individual children is the key factor in assessing the adequacy of special needs provision. We are concerned that this part of the Bill might facilitate the process by which the number of special schools could be further reduced. I do not think that that is the intention, and I do not claim that the Governmentare malevolent in that respect, but without the clear recommitment to special schools, which our amendments would provide, that doubt will remain.
There was some debate about that in earlier discussions, so I thought that it might be useful to have a look at some Government figures, which I did over breakfast—[Hon. Members: “Where was that?”] In a small Italian cafÃ(c) on the junction of Great Peter street and Great Smith street—it serves exemplary scrambled eggs. The Government’s figures show that there were approximately 93,000 children attending special schools in January 1999, but that by January of last year, that number had declined by about 8 per cent. to 85,540. I think that the Government remain committed to a policy of including as many children as possible in mainstream schools. I shall wait to hear what the Minister says about that. That policy has resulted in the closure, since 1997, of 93 special schools. I do not blame the Government alone for that—it was the prevailing orthodox thinking after the Warnock report and the following Act that was passed, of course, under a Conservative Government.
Baroness Warnock, whose report in 1978, as I mentioned, started the bandwagon for inclusion, said recently that the policy had backfired and left “a disastrous legacy”. Of course, the survey, about which we have talked, of teachers and head teachers, suggests that many of them know that the legacy has indeed been disastrous. In that survey, conducted by The Times Educational Supplement, they concluded that as many as one in four children with special needs integrated into the mainstream would have been served better by education in a special school. It is therefore vital that in the Bill we reaffirm our commitment to the continuance of special schools, and that we use this debate as an opportunity to celebrate their work and their excellence.
The Committee will know that one such special school threatened with closure, which might be protected by legislation that reaffirmed the role of schools in the way that I describe, is the Nuffield speech and language unit. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) has been a great champion of that place. The unit was part of the Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear hospital and, therefore, of the Royal Free Hampstead NHS trust. It has been in existence since 1971 and provides intensive teaching and therapy for children aged four to seven withsevere speech and language disorders, for whom there is no provision of comparable quality in mainstream schools. It is recognised as a centre of excellence. Between 1998 and 2003, 41 per cent. of the children leaving the unit returned directly to mainstream education.
My point about that school is that it is evidence of the fluidity that can occur when children spend time in special education and are then better equipped to take advantage of opportunities in the mainstream. We do not have to see the matter as static. It should be a dynamic process in which children’s needs are catered for most appropriately at each stage of their time in education. A child might well start off in a special school and then move to a mainstream school, as those Nuffield children have done—7 per cent. of children return to local language units and 38 per cent. transfer to the Meath school, a specialist school for children with specific speech and language difficulties.
The total cost of running the unit is some £300,000, whereas the expenditure of the trust is in the order of £300 million. The trust gives as the main reasons for its decision to recommend closure the Government’s inclusion policy and the preference of the local education authority for inclusion. The Committeewill understand, therefore, why we have tabled the amendment. Although we accept that the Government are not malevolent, we fear that we are all still suffering from the misassumptions about special educational provision that prevailed following the Warnock report and the legislation to which it gave rise. No such provision for children from four onwards can be found anywhere else. The fact is that the children with the most severe disorders need specialist intensive help, which units such as Nuffield can provide.
The school is critical, partly because the Government are keen to reduce the number of statements and partly because many LEAs, for ideological or financialreasons, are reluctant to issue statements before the age of five, and even when they do so, they are loth to finance out-of-area placements. I would go further: it is not enough simply to defend existing special schools; where we identify good practice, we should look to expand that kind of provision if the need warrants it. I want to see a new generation of special schools if that is what children need and parents want—that is the critical determinant.
That brings me to the other amendments in the group. Parents of children attending a community or foundation special school should be key consulteesin the case of any direction that requires the discontinuance of that school. Amendment No. 33 would, therefore, add them to the list. Furthermore, we ask in amendment No. 34 that the Secretary of State should give reasons for any such directions.
The first purpose of the amendments is to make a bold case for schools that provide excellent educational opportunities for disadvantaged children, and there are few children more disadvantaged than those with stated special educational needs. Units such as the Nuffield speech and language unit deserve the support that the amendment would give them. The second purpose is to ensure that the people most directly affected are properly involved in the process.
I make no apology for speaking to the amendments at some length, because the matter is important and they would add quality to the Bill. They will undoubtedly be accepted by the Minister in precisely that spirit.

Annette Brooke: I welcome you to the Committee this afternoon, Mr. Chope.
I shall refer to clause 16(1), to which the Conservatives have proposed amendments. If we are being logical, my hon. Friends and I should opposethe provision. I should like to probe the Minister on the clause, which I imagine would be used only in a most extreme case. I am slightly puzzled—if a school was in such a dire state that the health, safety or welfare of pupils was being affected, why on earth would the local authority not close it down? Do we really have local authorities that are so crass that they would not do that? Is there something extreme that might come up in an Ofsted report that would require the provision? I ask the Minister those questions with a view to supporting the clause if I can be convinced that it is very significant.
I am confused about the Conservatives’ amendments. We keep hearing that they do not like the Government’s policy of closing special schools, but here we have an amendment that actually asks the Secretary of State to intervene. It is slightly strange that they ask for a direction from the Secretary of State when they have argued all along that she has been engineering closures.
I have a further question on amendment No. 255. I recall that, the last time I was upset about the closure by a Conservative Administration of a special school to which some of my constituents went, there was a process whereby an adjudicator was brought in. Does that make the amendment unnecessary? The case was lost, but I recall a number of parts of the process. Will the Minister comment on that?
The amendments to which my hon. Friends and I have added our names are very sensible. If the extreme measure under the clause is taken by the Secretary of State because of health, social and welfare reasons, the parents of the children should be involved and the reasons for the closure should be stated. We support the amendments wholeheartedly, but I have asked questions on the issue because I am not yet entirely sure of the significance of the clause.

Nadine Dorries: In considering the amendments, we should examine the work that parents have to do to secure provision from a local education authority for a child with special educational needs. As those of us who are parents know, a week is a long time in the life of a child at school, and two or three years is a very long time for a child to have special needs. The age at which most special needs manifest themselves is about seven, and it can take parents two to three years to secure the provision of specialist help that their children need, in a maintained school, a non-maintained school or a special school.
Nowadays most parents who manage to secure the right provision for a child with special needs must go to the special educational needs and disability tribunal. The tribunal is free at the point of access for parents. I am trying to illustrate what a parent must go through to get a child into specialist provision and explain what the consequences would be, where the child would go, and the process that would have to be undergone to secure subsequent provision, should the provision secured for the child then close. Although parents do not have to pay to go to a tribunal, most local authorities nowadays employ a barrister and parents are expected to present professional reports about their child’s needs. We have heard about the cost of the tribunal to a parent.

Angela Smith: Are not most authorities keen to settle a tribunal before it takes place? The records prove that. Are not authorities also obliged to offer a free advocacy service to all parents who want to go to a tribunal?

Christopher Chope: Order. We are in danger of straying from the theme of the amendments, which is about the discontinuance of special schools, rather than what happens when they continue.

Nadine Dorries: I shall shorten my account, then, and merely say that it takes huge effort by parents to have a child statemented and to have their special needs met, as MPs of all parties know, I am sure. However, there are areas where special needs schools have closed. The Select Committee heard in evidence that Newbury no longer has any special needs schools—it states that all its children will be educated in inclusive programmes in maintained schools. However, the statistics show that that is not true, and most of the children with special needs in Newbury are being sent out of the borough.
Many special schools now take children from far afield. I have no special school in my constituency and children from there attend special schools as far away as Cheltenham; they must board away from home. If there are children with special needs in a school it will not be a simple matter to secure additional provision for them. Not many maintained schools will willingly take on a huge number of children with statements of special needs. It is not correct to assume that on the closure of a school children who have special needs can be placed in alternative education in the same way as children without special needs.
In light of the difficulty for parents in securing specialist provision for their children in maintained or special schools, how does the Minister think parents will cope on the closure of a school when there is no additional provision? How, given that most special schools now have long waiting lists and reduced numbers, would the required provision be supplied?

Robert Wilson: I want to speak briefly in support of amendments Nos. 32 and 255. There has for some time been concern about special educational needs—hence the recent Warnock report and the Ofsted and Audit Commission reports. It is widely recognised by those who work in special educational needs that there are significant problems. It is my view that the Government are failing to take a strong strategic lead in the matter. I am not sure now whether they back their 1997 policy of inclusion. Some Ministers have, certainly, suggested that it is now up to local authorities to decide their own framework. Wide variation in quality of and access to provision will continue while that happens.
Amendment No. 32 would provide a belt-and-braces approach so that any future closures could be thoroughly questioned, at least by the Secretary of State and her civil servants. Some special schools can and should be closed, but others are closed in the teeth of local opposition. Amendment No. 255 would ensure that alternative provision was made. Sometimes that has not been thought through when left to LEAs. Those two important amendments would offer parents support in accessing a quality service, which sometimes they do not receive at the moment.

Jacqui Smith: It might be worth while my beginning by explaining what clause 16, to which most of the amendments in the group relate, is designed to achieve, as no one seems particularly clear about that. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) at least had the honesty to ask what it is about.
The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to direct an LEA to close a maintained special school on a specified date when it is considered that that is inthe interests of the health, safety or welfare of the children. It re-enacts provisions in existing legislation and complements other provisions whereby the Secretary of State can withdraw approval from an independent or non-maintained special school, which would lead to the school’s closure. In other words, the clause ensures that the Secretary of State’s power in this case is equivalent to the Secretary of State’s power in respect of independent or non-maintained schools. It is a reserve power, intended to be used only when pupils are considered to be at risk. The clause provides the power to take emergency action to protect pupils in special schools, some of whom, as hon. Members know, are among the most vulnerable members of our society.
Amendment No. 32 does not relate to the health, safety or welfare of pupils, which is the subject of clause 16. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to authorise, by issuing a direction, the discontinuance of any maintained special school that catered for pupils with moderate or severe learning difficulties. I will go into more detail about how the system works now in relation to other amendments in the group, particularly the amendment to clause 18, but let me say that we believe that the current system provides an objective and independent balance between proposals made by local authorities and the needs of the local community.
The hon. Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson) said that the amendment would provide a belt-and-braces approach. That is an interesting approach to decision making in government. Unlike the many people who argue that government should be slimmed down, the hon. Gentleman wants belt-and-braces government. The amendment would introduce an unnecessary additional layer to the decision-making process.
No member of the Committee is unaware of the emotive issues and difficult decisions that surround the closure of some special schools, but we should also acknowledge that there have been other closures on which there was local agreement—for example, where one or more special schools have closed to move to a more modern facility. I do not think that there would be any very good reason why such decisions should be referred to the Secretary of State, so I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Amendment No. 33 relates to the requirement to consult parents. As I said, clause 16 provides a reserve power for specific circumstances, which are likely to be emergency circumstances. It already allows for consultation of
“such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”,
and I think that that provides sufficient safeguards. We expect “such other persons” to include parents ofchildren attending the school, but we should take note that the clause provides the power to take emergency action to protect pupils. We are talking not about a process whereby statutory proposals are published fora school’s closure, but about a situation in whichemergency action may need to take place very quickly and the normal length and scope of consultation may not be appropriate. I hope that hon. Members recognise that increasing the number of specific statutory steps that need to be taken in such exceptional circumstances might act against the welfare of the children and young people being considered.
I turn now to amendment No. 34. The clause requires the Secretary of State to give notice in writing of a direction to a school’s governing body and head teacher. Before the direction is issued, there is consultation with interested parties, and the reasons for considering the direction will be well known. We would clearly expect a letter giving a direction to give the reasons for that direction.
Amendment No. 255 would require the Secretary of State to be satisfied that acceptable alternative provision had been made for children before a school was closed by direction. The clause specifies that a direction must give a date for discontinuance. One factor to be considered in setting that date will be the alternative placement of the children at the school, but we are clear that it should not be the determining factor. As I suggested, pupils’ welfare must take priority in the grave situation where the Secretary of State is considering closing a whole school because of concerns about the pupils’ health, safety or welfare.
There is, of course, an important safeguard. Children attending a special school will have a statement of special educational needs setting out the provision and placement that apply to them. Local authorities are under a duty to amend a statement if changes are proposed to that provision or placement, and that will involve consulting parents, otherschools and possibly local authorities with which the child might be placed. Local authorities would automatically have to amend the provision in a statement where a school was under threat of closure. I hope that that gives some reassurance on the alternative provision. In the exceptional circumstances in which the reserve power would be used, we would not necessarily want to delay a decision to ensure that alternative provision was in place at that particular moment, but the statementing process is an important way of ensuring that provision is made.
We take the aims of promoting and safeguarding pupils’ welfare extremely seriously. It is important that the Secretary of State has power to act when emergency circumstances arise. That is the correct step to take, and that is what the clause achieves. I suspect that hon. Members will be relieved to know that it has not been necessary to use that power since the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 introduced it. However, they will agree that were it necessary to use that power, it would be important to use it not only appropriately, but in a way that safeguarded the children in a school as quickly as possible. For the reasons that I have given, therefore, I hope that hon. Members will not press their amendments to clause 16. 
Amendment No. 35 relates to clause 18, which is a more general clause about prescribed alterations and in many ways the more appropriate place to discuss the process of alterations to particular schools, although it does not relate to the emergency proposals covered in clause 16. As has always been the case, changes will continue to be made to individual schools—both special and mainstream—in the light of local needs and demands.
The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) referred to the research that he had done over his breakfast, but perhaps he should have spent slightly longer over his breakfast. The figures that he gave for maintained special schools and the number of pupils are correct, but consideration must be given to the number of pupils in non-maintained special schools and independent special schools, where the number of pupils with statements is increasing. The key point, however, is that although the numbers have decreased, there has also been an overall decrease in the pupil population. In fact, whereas the proportion of children in maintained special schools in 1997 was 1.1 per cent., remaining at that level up to 2003, and in 2005 the figure was 1 per cent. The proportion of children placed in maintained special schools has been stable for the past eight years, which gives the lie to the proposition that there has been a radical change and that a large proportion of children cannot now access and take advantage of those special schools.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that we should use today as a celebration of the contribution of special schools. I am more than happy to celebrate and praise the contribution that special schools make both to the children with places in them, and increasingly—this is a key element of Government policy—through their work with mainstream schools, sharing that expertise and ensuring that children get the best facilities, support, teaching and provision, whatever school they attend. That is at the heart of what we mean by inclusion: looking at the needs of each child and ensuring that they receive the best provision and support, wherever they are educated.
When it comes to making decisions about the organisation and structure of special needs provision, local authorities and schools themselves are best placed to respond to the needs of pupils in their areas. That is why amendment No. 35 is unnecessary and undesirable. In terms of its intention, it is an example of a centralising amendment. While certain values remain paramount in dealing with children with special needs, those needs and the demography of children with special needs will change over time. Local authorities that reorganise their special educational needs provision quite often do so because they recognise that special schools need to cater for the growing population of children with severe and complex needs, and mainstream schools need to have the capacity to teach children with moderate learning difficulties who in many circumstances would not be appropriately placed in special schools. As I suggested, that close collaboration between special and mainstream schools is also being promoted.
Local authorities are also developing resourced provision within or attached to schools as another way of providing specialist help to pupils who need it and of including them in mainstream activities. That would be prevented by any moratorium or if local authorities could not examine how they organised their provision. That is what some hon. Members opposite want, but it is not what we want, which is a continuum of provision to meet the range of needs.
Of course the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries) is right that parents feel passionately about ensuring that their children receive the best provision, which is at the heart of the Government’s approach to developing special educational needs provision. However, let me correct a couple of her other comments—perhaps she would like to listen to this. She said that most parents of children with special educational needs have to go to SENDIST, but that is just wrong. Not only does the number not constitute most parents, but the number of appeals to SENDIST has fallen markedly, by 9 per cent.

Nadine Dorries: Could that be because most parents cannot afford to go to a tribunal?

Jacqui Smith: No, it could not. Of course the statementing process is important, but the proportion of statements written within the required 18 weeks now stands at 92 per cent., up from 82 per cent. five years ago. Of course the system is not perfect, but to suggest that the vast majority of parents and children are not receiving important support is to misjudge and misrepresent it in a way that does not help mature debate.
The amendment would remove one of the key flexibilities in the continuum of provision that we want to achieve. Clause 18 is not about the opening or closure of schools, but about the alteration of existing schools and the circumstances in which proposals need to be published. Sometimes in order to alter or establish a certain type of special needs provision, often in new and improved facilities, other provision in unsuitable accommodation needs to close. We do not want to impose from the centre a planning blight on local authorities so that they cannot develop provision to meet changing patterns of need in their areas. How local authorities publish proposals for appropriate provision must be up to them.
It is not for the Government to say, for example, “You’ve got to have five special schools, two pupil referral units, or so many special needs units attached to mainstream schools.” Those are rightly matters for local decision based on local needs. I hope, for the reasons that I have given, that amendment No. 35 will not be pressed.
The provisions that we have made are the right approach, and I hope that hon. Members who have tabled amendments in the group—whether to clause 16, which relates to a reserve power in specific emergency circumstances, or to clause 18—will not press them.

John Hayes: The Minister has comprehensively assessed the clause and the amendments. I shall deal with each in turn.
I take the right hon. Lady’s point about amendment No. 34, which was that in the case of the closure of a special school in the emergency circumstances that she described, the reasons for such a direction would be given in writing as a matter of course. Furthermore, I accept her advice that those consulted would include all appropriate people, which would by necessity include parents of children attending the school. On that basis, it seems to me to be entirely unreasonable to press either amendment No. 34 or amendment No. 33. I also take her advice that the clause provides a reserve power to be used in exceptional circumstances andwill, in effect, give life once again to the power in the 1998 Act, which has not been used because such emergencies have not occurred. On that basis, it would be inappropriate to press amendment No. 32.
However, the right hon. Lady made one or two points about alternative provision that were less convincing. I accept that the circumstances in which the clause would be used would necessarily be exceptional. However, it would be odd if acceptable alternative provision for children affected was not a critical part of the process. She said that the statement would be amended if necessary and that proper consideration would have to be given by force of law, because there is a statutory duty to provide an education in line with the statement that would remain regardless of the closure of the school concerned. None the less, it would be useful to accept amendment No. 255 as it is highly desirable in such emergency, albeit rare, circumstances that alternative provision is a central element of what the law expects. The right hon. Lady was less convincing on that topic.
I was pleased that the Minister took up my challenge to celebrate the work of special schools. I am concerned that The Times Educational Supplement survey suggests that 90 per cent. of head teachers thought that their schools did not receive enough support to ensure the success of inclusion and that two thirds of teachers have received less than one day’s training on how to teach children with special needs. Those are matters of profound concern.
If we are going to include children in the mainstream—there are many children for whom that is the right course—we must ensure that those who are responsible for educating them are equipped to do so, as the Minister said. I do not in any way deride the good work of schools or the good intentions of the Minister, but I am not sure that the evidence suggests that that is always the case. I want to re-amplify those worries here today. Notwithstanding the Minister’s assurances, I am inclined to press amendment No. 255 to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 255, in clause 16, page 11, line 34, at end insert—
‘(1A) Before any special school is closed by direction of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that acceptable alternative provision for the children in that special school has been made.'.—[Mr. Hayes.]

Question put,That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 16.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2

Proposals for establishment or discontinuance of schools in England

Jacqui Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 107, in schedule 2, page 114, line 16, after ‘paragraph' insert
‘, other than proposals to which paragraph 10 applies,'.

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 108 to 127.

Jacqui Smith: These amendments are intended in the main to correct technical drafting flaws in the Bill and in some cases to preserve and clarify its original intention. I will provide the Committee with a brief overview of their effect, dealing first with the purely technical amendments.
Amendments Nos. 108, 112, 119, 121, 122, and 127 are designed to correct and clarify cross-references in the Bill to other legislation, including references to other sections of the Bill and to the Learning and Skills Act 2000.
The other main “sub-group” is amendmentsNos. 110, 111, 113, 120, 123, 124, 125 and 126.They are all designed to clarify at various points in the schedule that the requirement to link proposals for consideration, determination or referral to the adjudicator applies only when those proposals are yet to be determined.
Amendments Nos. 117 and 118 will widen the circumstances in which prescribed bodies such diocesan authorities, promoters of new schools and, in some circumstances, the governors of a school or the Learning and Skills Council may refer an objection to a local authority's decision on proposals to the adjudicator. As the Bill stands, such objections may be referred only when proposals have been rejected, which could mean that there would be no mechanism for appeal if a local authority approved proposals for an independent school to join the maintained sector despite concerns about the impact on community cohesion. The amendments change the wording so that objections may also be referred when proposals have been determined.
We are also allowing the local authority to comment on proposals when they are referred. That was always the original intention of the legislation, as was indicated in the White Paper, which made it clear that providers who were dissatisfied with a local authority decision would be able to appeal to the schools adjudicator. Amendments Nos. 117 and 118 fulfil that commitment fully.
Amendment No. 107 is designed to clarify the intention when a local authority is required torefer proposals to the schools adjudicator. As the Committee will be aware, when proposals are referred, the local authority has no role in determining them. Amendment No. 107 makes it clear that the local authority will not be expected to undertake any consideration of such proposals.
Amendment No. 109 corrects an original intention of the legislation. As the Bill stands, regulations would prescribe the changes that local authorities may make to proposals before they are determined. We do not think it necessary to prescribe such changes, because local authorities must be given the freedom to consider and respond to differing local circumstances and concerns. The amendment therefore removes the reference to prescribed alterations.
Amendment No. 114 removes the requirement on a local authority automatically to refer its own proposals to discontinue a school to the schools adjudicator if objections are received from any party. If this amendment is not made, the net result could be a massive and unacceptable burden on the schools adjudicator, as most proposals would be likely to end up at the adjudicator's door. Our intention was always that proposals should be referred only at the request of the types of organisation that I mentioned earlier—for example, those represented on the school organisation committee. The amendment corrects the Bill to achieve that intention.
Amendment No. 115 provides for regulations to allow that where a local authority refers to the adjudicator its own proposals or those concerning a trust in which it has a minor interest, objections to those proposals may also be referred.
I hope that members of the Committee agree that the amendments are helpful not only in tidying up some of the current drafting in the Bill, but in making our policy intentions clearer in some areas and providing useful additional provision in others.

Nick Gibb: I am delighted that some of the amendments take us back to the vision of the White Paper, which is the driving force behind most of our amendments. However, I have a few points to raise regarding amendments Nos. 109, 114, 117, and 122.
The Minister explained that amendment No. 109 does not correct a drafting error. I assume, therefore, that the phrase “of a prescribed kind” in paragraph 8(4)(c) of the schedule was originally intended to be included, as I would have expected, so that where schools are established under the procedures inclauses 9 or 10—that is, outside a competition—local authorities’ powers to alter proposals would be more limited than with proposals under clause 7, which involves proposals that local authorities have invited. If that is the case, why has the Minister changed her position? Why does she now want to give local authorities more say over proposals for new schools that they might not have had any involvement in initiating, unless the procedure was according toclause 9(1), in which case they would have to seek special permission to initiate from the Secretary of State? A response to that point would be extremely helpful.
Will the Minister confirm that the effect of amendment No. 114 together with amendment No. 117 would be to prevent the objections to school closures of people other than those listed resulting in a referral to the schools adjudicator?
On amendment No. 122, will the Minister explain why paragraph 14 of the schedule will not be included in the amended list in paragraph 18(3)(a)?

Sarah Teather: If I may do so with your agreement, Mr. Chope, I shall make a couple of brief comments on the amendments before making general comments on part 4 of the schedule, rather than speak in the debate on clause stand part.

Christopher Chope: That seems very fair.

Sarah Teather: Thank you, Mr. Chope.
I welcome the fact that the Government are giving more freedom to local authorities, as amendmentNo. 109 does. I have some queries about part 4 of the schedule. Have the Government considered the possibility of transferring assets to a trust with a leasehold rather than with a freehold? That would partly deal with the concern of many hon. Members that a trust might damage the value of an asset and prevent a local authority from having any overall strategic management of it. It would ensure that, if any serious alterations to the building were needed, the trust would have to notify the freeholder before making them. It would allow some element of protection.
Will the Minister confirm that playing fields are excluded from being transferred to prevent their sale and their loss to an area?
It is not clear to us why, as set out in paragraph 28(4), the local authority should pay the costs of a transfer to a trust. Will the Minister clarify the intention behind that? When any other asset is sold, the person buying or gaining it would pay the costs. The local authority may incur considerable costs.

Jacqui Smith: I shall first answer the points madeby the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. I will look carefully at what he said on amendment No. 109, but I do not necessarily accept his interpretation of it. It relates to the extent to which a local authority can modify proposals when making a decision on them. The amendment will mean that such modification does not need to be constrained to a prescribed alteration. A local authority will not be able to make radical changes; the intention is that the shape of the original proposal must remain but that there should not be artificial restrictions on the nature of the modifications that a local authority can make.
On amendment No. 114, if the hon. Gentleman was asking me whether it would limit those who could require a local authority to refer to an adjudicator, the answer is yes, as I spelt out in my earlier comments. As originally drafted, the implication of the Bill was that if there were any objection to a proposal it would have to be referred to the adjudicator. That was neither the policy intention nor the current position, and no member of the Committee would think that a proportionate approach. Our proposal is that those who are currently represented on the school organisation committee, for example, would maintain their ability to refer proposals for adjudication.
I am afraid that I slightly lost track of the last point that the hon. Gentleman raised, but I will write to him with a response.
The hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) referred to part 4 of the schedule. I can perhaps provide her with some reassurance. The guidance that I have issued alongside clause 34—I think that it has been sent out to members of the Committee—spells out in detail the different circumstances of the transfer of assets when a school takes on foundation status, the various protections afforded to both the school and the local authority and the adjudicator’s role in mediating in certain circumstances; for instance, if there is disagreement about the nature of the land to be transferred.
On the point that the hon. Lady made about leasehold, the disadvantage of negotiating potentially 24,000 different leasehold agreements is that it would be time-consuming, burdensome and bureaucratic. We believe that the transfer of freehold, the protections outlined in schedule 4 and the guidance to which I have referred are the most effective ways in which we can ensure what I think she is getting at—the suitable protection of publicly funded land. I think that if she looks at the guidance and the schedule, she will see the sort of protections that we envisage.
Finally, I can reassure the hon. Lady, not on her specific point, but with respect to playing fields, that there is nothing in the legislation or the transfer of assets that would undermine the protection of playing field land put in place by—if my memory serves me right—section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act. Under the Bill before us, that protection will remain in place. With those reassurances, I hope that hon. Members will feel able to support schedule 2.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 108, in schedule 2, page 114, line 19, after ‘13' insert ‘and 15'.
No. 109, in schedule 2, page 114, line 31, leave out ‘of a prescribed kind'.
No. 110, in schedule 2, page 115, line 3, at end insert
‘but have not yet been determined by him'.
No. 111, in schedule 2, page 115, line 6, after ‘sections' insert ‘and not yet determined'.
No. 112, in schedule 2, page 115, line 7, leave out ‘section 113 of' and insert ‘Schedule 7 to'.
No. 113, in schedule 2, page 115, line 8, at end insert ‘and not yet determined'.
No. 114, in schedule 2, page 115, leave out lines 26 and 27.
No. 115, in schedule 2, page 115, line 36, at end insert—
‘(3) Regulations may make provision for the making by the relevant authority to the adjudicator of objections to any proposals which are required to be referred to the adjudicator under this paragraph.'.
No. 116, in schedule 2, page 116, line 31, leave out ‘at the request of' and insert
‘if so requested within a prescribed time by'.
No. 117, in schedule 2, page 116, line 33, leave out from ‘have' to end of line and insert
‘determined under paragraph 8(4), together with any reasons given by the authority for their determination'.
No. 118, in schedule 2, page 116, line 41, after ‘authority' insert
‘and rejected by the authority under paragraph 8(4)(a)'.
No. 119, in schedule 2, page 117, line 2, leave out
‘suitable only to the requirements of'
and insert ‘for'.
No. 120, in schedule 2, page 117, line 5, leave out paragraph 15 and insert—
‘15 Where the relevant authority are required under any of paragraphs 10 to 14 or under Schedule 7 to the Learning and Skills Act 2000 to refer any proposals (“the relevant proposals”) to the adjudicator, the authority must also within a prescribed time refer to the adjudicator—
(a) any other proposals under section 7, 9, 10 or 14 which relate to the area of the relevant authority and which by virtue of paragraph 9(2) fall to be considered with the relevant proposals, and
(b) where the relevant proposals are referred to the adjudicator by virtue of paragraph 14, any other proposals under section 9, 10 or 14 which by virtue of paragraph 9(2) were determined by the relevant authority with the relevant proposals.'.
No. 121, in schedule 2, page 117, line 28, leave out
‘of paragraphs 10 to 14'
and insert
‘provision of this Part of this Schedule'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 56, in schedule 2, page 117, line 42, at end insert—

‘Right of appeal against decisions of the adjudicator

17A (1) Where the adjudicator makes a decision in relation to the establishment, discontinuance or alteration of a school, the school concerned, or in the case of the establishment of a school, the proposer, may appeal to the Secretary of State.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision in relation to appeals under this section, including provision as to—
(a) the time by which an appeal is to be made,
(b) the manner in which an appeal is to be made,
(c) the procedure to be followed in connection with an appeal, and
(d) the matters to be taken into account in deciding whether to allow an appeal.'.
Amendment No. 56 would introduce a right of appeal to the Secretary of State over decisions made by the school adjudicator. The wording used in the amendment is lifted from the Local Government Act 2003, which was used to establish a right of appeal against decisions by billing authorities to vet business improvement district proposals.
The school adjudicator was originally established by section 25 of the School Standards and Framework Act in order to determine a range of school organisation and admission decisions.

Jonathan R Shaw: Hear, hear!

Nick Gibb: The hon. Gentleman says, “Hear, hear!” about that provision. When we discuss school organisation committees, we will come to a provision that the hon. Gentleman will no doubt regret, also established under that Act.
Under current legislation and this Bill, there is no right of appeal for such decisions. The only recourse for aggrieved parties is the costly and limited judicial review process. A judicial review of a decision by a school adjudicator can cost about £50,000 or £60,000. The Bill before us extends significantly the powers of the school adjudicator, and we believe that natural justice requires that there be an appeal process from those decisions. We have opted for that appeal to be to the Secretary of State, who is, of course, accountable to Parliament and the electorate.
There is a concern that the school adjudicator and his regional representatives are very much part of the education establishment, which is responsible forthe current problems in our education system and under which a quarter of secondary schools are underperforming. There is a concern also that in reality they are not as independent as they were established to be. In their seminal work for Policy Exchange: “More Good School Places”, James O’Shaughnessy and Charlotte Leslie wrote that,
“although the Adjudicator is supposed to be independent, it is unfortunately not always so, as Rose Bugler from the Lowick Primary School in Cumbria explains”.
Cumbria education authority wanted to close the Lowick school. Rose Bugler said:
“The LEA said to us that they had decided early on that there was no need for any new schools in the county. End of story.”
She went on to say:
“We finally got to the Adjudicator, who we thought would be independent. However, the Adjudicator has to take note of what the LEA says and of course that must be the ‘truth’. It was all tied up in political knots.”
O’Shaughnessy and Leslie provide other examples of the adjudicator’s decision making that demonstrate why it is crucial for there to be an appeal process against his or her decisions. They cite the example of Brighton and Hove Montessori school, a not-for-profit independent school. For 12 years, it had been trying to become the first state Montessori school in the United Kingdom. In 2004, the Department for Education and Skills approved its capital funding bid to buy land and to build a voluntary aided school. Because it was a voluntary aided school, the school had to find 10 per cent. of the capital. As O’Shaughnessy and Leslie comment,
“Initially, the local authority, Brighton and Hove City Council, supported their bid but, despite the DFES’s enthusiasm, soon became far less co-operative.”
The Brighton and Hove school organisation committee refused the application for voluntary aided status on five grounds and the school appealed to the schools adjudicator. The grounds for the objection were: the educational standards of the proposed school; the source of the capital funding; the fact that there were surplus places in the area; a lack of parental demand; and the school’s unhappiness with the admission arrangements. To counter those criticisms, the school pointed out that surplus places cannot be used as an argument in rejecting an application by a proposer where there is a strong case based on parental preference and standards. The school had a full waiting list and a 700-name petition calling for it; it had followed the advice of the admissions team at the DFES; and its Ofsted reports were good.
The adjudicator found against the school on the capital funding issue. The DFES guidance prevented him from approving the bid on the condition of the remaining funding being found. Meanwhile, the LEA’s opposition to the school had discouraged the bank, with which the school had been negotiating for the other 10 per cent., from approving the loan. The bank was unwilling to go ahead without a more positive input from the LEA. It became a vicious circle. DFES guidance states that the presumption should be to approve a new bid. The grounds on which the bid was contested were very dubious, and the decision of the adjudicator was predicated on caution and maintaining the status quo. In his conclusion to the case, the adjudicator said:
“It is not...possible to be certain that present qualities” —
the high quality of education provided when the school was in the independent sector—
“would apply to the proposed school. I must if anything err on the side of caution.”
In a statement echoing the attitude of the Deputy Prime Minister to this Bill, he said that, with its new facilities, the new maintained school
“might prove attractive to more local families who might indeed find places to be available. If that were to be the case, then the anxieties expressed by the LEA, schools local to the proposed site and other objectors would prove to be well founded.”
The report demonstrates the challenges faced bypromoters in establishing new schools. Where promoters face opposition from existing schools and the LEA, they can find it difficult to proceed. The adjudicator in that case reinforced the erroneous objections. His decision explicitly recognised the success and popularity of the new school, but his comments on the impact that the school would have on existing schools demonstrated a reluctance to challenge the position of those schools.
There was, therefore, a case for an appeal against the decision of the schools adjudicator even before the Bill was published. The new, increased range of decisions to be referred to the adjudicator under the Bill makes the case for an appeal process even more compelling.

Sarah Teather: I shall listen carefully to the Minister’s arguments in response to this Conservative amendment, but we on the Liberal Democrat Benches instinctively see the amendment as attempting to undermine the independence of the schools adjudicator. Our instinct is to oppose it, but we will listen carefully to the Minister and to what the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton says in reply.

Jacqui Smith: As we have heard, the amendment would give schools and the proposers of new schools a right of appeal to the Secretary of State on decisions of the adjudicator. The instincts of the hon. Member for Brent, East are right; it is a slightly surprising amendment, given what I thought was a reasonably recurrent theme of Conservative policy—the need to cut back on the power of Government and the Secretary of State.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton wrongly sees the adjudicator as being a creature of government. He disparagingly dismissed those who carry out that important role as being part of what he called an educational establishment that has failed badly—a sweeping deprecation of large numbers of hard-working people who have achieved some considerable improvements over the past eight years.
Nevertheless, I hope to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the eight adjudicators, including Dr. Philip Hunter, the chief adjudicator, all had a wide and diverseexperience of education before being appointed. That is important when making independent decisions about complex educational issues. Three were chief education officers, three were Her Majesty’s inspectors of schools, one was a diocesan director of education and one was a civil servant who now also serves as a parliamentary commissioner. They were appointed for their ability to act impartially, independently and objectively, taking account of the case presented by each party, the evidence presented to support that case and any general guidance issued by the Secretary of State. Adjudicators areindependent of the Secretary of State, and base their decisions on the merits of each case.
As for the merits of the case for the amendment, I am unpersuaded. Although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would always take decisions on the merits of the cases that came before her, the possibility has to be considered that not all holders of her office would do so. At one time, many changes to schools came to the Secretary of State for a decision. One reason for stopping that and devolving decision making on school organisation to the local level was to ensure that such decisions were taken without national political intervention.
On balance, we think it right that local decisions should be taken locally whenever possible. That is why, as I suggested after the 1997 election, we introduced the school organisation committee, which we will discuss later, that will represent local stake holders; and we are now introducing a new framework, with the local authority as the commissioner and assurer of education provision.
However, we appreciate that in some circumstances there may be a local clash of interests—a school proposed for closure by the local authority may have different ideas, or a school may wish to expand to offer greater choice to parents. There may be circumstances such as outlined by the hon. Gentleman, notwithstanding the fact that he thought the adjudicator had not made the right decision in those circumstances, where a proposer might make a proposition that the local decision maker turned down.
In such circumstances, we think it right that there should also be an appeal against the decision of the local authority. That is why we have provided the right to appeal to the adjudicator. That right of appeal is the second stage of the process. There will already have been a local determination, with all the consultation and consideration that we have previously discussed in relation to other measures in the Bill. However, there will come a time when appeals must come to an end—a time when enough is enough. An appeal againstthe appeal is, I would argue, unnecessary in such circumstances. Adjudicators are independent, and their decisions are based on the merits of the case.
In extreme circumstances, as the hon. Gentleman himself pointed out, a judicial review of an adjudicator’s decision is possible. The system is now, but will be even more so under the Bill, made up of an important process of local decision making and accountability alongside an ability to refer disputed decisions to an independent adjudicator. That is an appropriate balance. Having a further right of appeal, particularly one to the Secretary of State and central Government, goes against theprovisions and direction of the Bill and the efficient operation of school organisation at a local level. For those reasons, I oppose the amendment.

Nick Gibb: There is widespread concern outside this place about extra powers being given to the adjudicator, particularly because there is no right to appeal from the adjudicator. Let me pick any page of the Bill: page 115 in schedule 2 contains paragraphs entitled “Duty to refer to adjudicator proposals made by...relevant authority” and “Duty to refer proposals to adjudicator in prescribed cases”. On the next page are paragraphs entitled, “Duty to refer proposals to adjudicator in pursuance of direction by Secretary of State”, “Duty to refer proposals to adjudicator where determination delayed” and “Reference to adjudicator at request of aggrieved person”. I have not even touched on the admissions section of the Bill, in which the adjudicator has a large role.
There should be a right of appeal. That is all that the amendment says, and I am surprised that the Secretary of State cannot bring herself to insert into the Bill, perhaps through a Government amendment, some form of right of appeal from the adjudicator. I very much hope that the Liberals will support us on this, because there might be problems if we do not give this right of appeal—perhaps not in all circumstances, but certainly in some. In light of that, I should like to press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 16.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: No. 122, in schedule 2, page 118, line 14, leave out ‘or 12' and insert ‘12, 13 or 15'.
No. 123, in schedule 2, page 118, line 38, at end insert
‘but have not yet been determined by him'.
No. 124, in schedule 2, page 118, line 41, after ‘14' insert ‘and not yet determined'.
No. 125, in schedule 2, page 118, line 42, after ‘10' insert ‘and not yet determined'.
No. 126, in schedule 2, page 118, line 43, leave out from ‘under' to end of line 44 and insert
‘Schedule 7 to the Learning and Skills Act 2000 and not yet determined'.
No. 127, in schedule 2, page 119, line 9, after ‘and' insert
‘in a case falling within paragraph (a)'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 17

Alterations that may be made under section 18

Sarah Teather: I beg to move amendment No. 353, in clause 17, page 12, line 23, at end insert—
‘(2A) Regulations must provide that alterations falling within subsection (2)(b) may be implemented only if the conditions in section [Conditions for new foundations] are satisfied.'.

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 354, in clause 18, page 13, line 5, at end insert—
‘(1A) But proposals for a prescribed alteration involving the acquisition by a foundation or foundation special school of a foundation established otherwise than under SSFA 1998 may be published only if the conditions in section [Conditions for new foundations] are satisfied.'.
New clause 6—Conditions for new foundations—
‘(1) A new foundation may not be established unless it contains either—
(a) at least two secondary schools within six miles of each other, or
(b) at least two primary schools within six miles of each other.
(2) A new foundation falling within subsection (1)(a) may also include one or more nursery schools, primary schools, further education colleges, Academies, City Technology Colleges, city colleges for the technology of the arts, and other such other educational establishments and training providers within the local area.
(3) A new foundation falling within subsection (1)(b) may also include one or more nursery schools, secondary schools, further education colleges, Academies, City Technology Colleges, city colleges for the technology of the arts, and other such other educational establishments and training providers within the local area.
(4) A new foundation falling within subsection (1) shall be known as a “community learning trust”.'.

Sarah Teather: The amendments are paving amendments for new clause 6, which we have tabled to explore further the model that the Government have in mind for trust schools, and to offer a particular model based on collaboration. Elements of our concerns and our reasons for tabling the amendments have been picked up in the guidance and the helpful document that was circulated at the end of this morning’s sitting. However, there are other elements that we want to probe further, and we would like to place on record why we favour a more collaborative model.
Let me first place the issue in context. As we have said in Committee and on the Floor of the House, we are not opposed in principle to external partners being involved in education provision. However, we have sought to put on record, both here and elsewhere, details of the safeguards governing the types of organisation that would be involved. We have also said that we would not want an external partner to usurp the direct accountability that parents currently enjoy through the governing body. We will discuss some of those issues shortly when we come to the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Bury, North. We are also unhappy about giving schools greater freedom on admissions, although we are happy to give them greater financial freedom and would like all schools to have greater freedom in dealing with the curriculum, as academies currently do.
Critically, any model should include collaboration, and that is why we tabled the amendments. On page 4 of the document that was circulated at the end of our morning sitting, the Government make provision for a group of local schools to work with a trust, and that touches on many of the issues that we are raising, but we would like to broaden that provision. It is important that a trust involves collaboration between schools or between schools and colleges or other providers. In that way, the trust will be embedded in the local community, rather than just being part of a national chain, in which case its concerns and objectives might relate more to the national brand and the national profile than to what was good for the local community.
The model that we propose would have the benefit of preventing cherry-picking. It would prevent trusts from coming into an area and picking off the good schools, rather than working to benefit all the schools in the area.

Nick Gibb: Does that mean that the Liberals oppose the very good work of the Mercers’ Company, which has a range of schools, and which would benefit very much from being able to establish further schools under its brand nationwide? The schools in the Mercers’ Company family that I have visited are fantastic and include the Thomas Telford school, which is the best comprehensive school in Britain.

Sarah Teather: What I am saying is that we particularly favour a model of collaboration. Certain people—the hon. Gentleman has alluded to one example—have a track record of involvement in education, and that would be a different matter. We are concerned about particular trusts coming into an area, picking off the best schools and moving across boroughs, rather than working in collaboration for the benefit of all schools in the area. Given the focus on league tables and exam results, there is a danger that chains of schools will have an incentive to become elitist and to use their freedom on admissions to exclude difficult or under-achieving pupils.
If trusts are to be involved in several schools, that implies that there will be a much greater commitment to the local area. As outlined in the guidance that the Minister circulated, such trusts could be made up of several partners. The vision that we have laid out would allow organisations other than just schools to be involved in forming partnerships. For example, external partners such as youth services providing child care or youth, social or family support could link with learning providers. There could also be links with FE colleges, as we discussed at considerable length during this morning’s sitting.
The key point about collaboration is that it would ensure that the trust model provided greater diversity in the curriculum and greater choice for young people. The benefits would include the ability to share teaching expertise, which will be vital if we are to work towards providing for Tomlinson or even just the rather limited version of diplomas that are offered in the Bill.

John Hayes: The model that the hon. Lady outlinesis interesting. Would she include in it private organisations that might play a role in management or education provision itself?

Sarah Teather: Another possibility could be work-based learning providers that were private companies. That is precisely the kind of vision that we are trying to draw out. The point is that a trust would be based in a local area, rather than spread throughout the country, with favoured schools being cherry-picked. Our proposal would provide for a model of integrated learning involving further education colleges, work-based learning providers and any other expertise that could be offered in an area. It would allow schools, particularly disadvantaged ones, to overcome, for example, shortages of specialist teachers in subjects such as science, maths and languages.
It is notable that the shortage of specialist teachers occurs particularly in disadvantaged areas. Let usconsider the statistics. Only about 4 per cent. of teachers throughout the country lack specialist status, but in many central London boroughs the figure can be as high as 15 or 16 per cent., so the disparity is huge. It might be interesting to consider our model for those areas.
Such collaborations may happen already. However, we are concerned about the rhetoric behind theBill. Admittedly, we have not heard that rhetoric in Committee, where this Minister is leading on the Bill, but there has been rhetoric from No. 10 about picking off different schools—about schools operating inisolation in a competitive model. Our concern is that there will be a disincentive to the kind of collaborations that can happen already and that some of the good collaborations that have happened in many areas and that are helping to drive up standards will be broken.
Our model would strengthen the collaborations that can already happen, but they would happen in the context of the safeguards that we dealt with in relation to earlier clauses and that we will come to in the next string of amendments.

Nick Gibb: Let us be clear about what the new clause would do. It states:
“A new foundation may not be established unless it contains either...at least two secondary schools within six miles of each other, or...at least two primary schools within six miles of each other.”
This proposal is another example of the position that the Liberal party has adopted on the Bill, which is deep hostility. That position is as mistaken as the position that the Liberal party took on the Iraqi war—a position that Lord Ashdown, its former leader, also believes was a mistake.
The new clause would completely destroy the central tenet of the Bill, which is trust schools. It would confine the establishment of such schools to the situation of a local federation and it would restrict foundations to controlling groups of schools in a local area. It would rule out two possibilities. First, it would rule out the possibility of a national educational organisation trying to set up a nationwide chain of schools, as the hon. Lady admitted. That would rule out companies such as the Mercers’ Company, a City of London guild, which has a fantastic track record in the provision of education in this country. When the hon. Lady is out of Committee and has time to go to the Thomas Telford school, as I did just before the Committee started, she will see an example of how education in this country should be run. That school provides all the vocational education that she and her colleagues have talked about, but it also has very high standards of academic education.

David Chaytor: It is unclear why the hon. Gentleman argues that the proposal would prevent trusts with a national reputation from building a national chain of schools. The new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Brent, East simply says that they should build federations of schools. A federation is at least two schools. There would be nothing to prevent an organisation that wished to build a network nationally from doing so, but it would be building a network of federations rather than individual schools. According to the arguments that the hon. Lady has put—

Christopher Chope: Order. That is long enough for an intervention.

Nick Gibb: First, the hon. Lady explicitly ruled out such national organisations in her remarks. Secondly, the new clause explicitly says:
“A new foundation may not be established unless it contains either...at least two secondary schools within six miles of each other”
and so on. A particular company may well not have two schools, or may not want to have two schools, within six miles of each other. The schools may be spread nationally—throughout the country. However many it had then, it would fall foul of the amendment. That would prevent the establishment of such branding-type organisations, although they would be an effective way to inject innovation and high standards into the education system. That is a basic element of the Bill, which is why it will be effective when it reaches the statute book.

John Hayes: Will my hon. Friend make it absolutely clear that it is perverse to suggest that the Mercersor the Leathersellers—another guild involved in education—could be competent and proper people to establish two schools but not one? Perhaps my hon. Friend will explore why people say it. Might it be a slightly disingenuous policy on the part of the Liberal Democrats and others?

Nick Gibb: My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I had not mentioned: there is a requirement in the new clause for two schools, which would rule out foundation status for individual schools. That would be a huge disappointment. It would also rule out the possibility of individual schools acquiring a bespoke trust design to meet their specific needs. The amendments would hinder the main objective of the Bill, which is to raise the quality of education available to children.

Annette Brooke: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the thrust of the amendment is to promote collaboration rather than competition? Cannot collaboration raise standards effectively?

Nick Gibb: I am in favour of collaboration, and other provisions in the Bill encourage it. We debated earlier a clause imported from previous legislation that is all about federations of schools—clause 11. However, I understood from the remarks of the hon. Member for Brent, East that the new clause specifically rules out the Mercers’ Company approach to education, which is, I think, a basic principle of the Bill. I think that that will be very successful when it is up and running in the years ahead. I rest my case there, and urge the Liberal Democrats to withdraw their amendment; if they do not, I urge hon. Members to vote against the new clause.

Greg Mulholland: I find some of the hon. Gentleman’s comments a little extraordinary. His tangential remarks about the Iraq war were more to be expected from the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings; perhaps some influence is being exerted. We are clear that the amendments and new clause are setting a challenge to us all. We consider that there is not sufficient collaboration at this stage and that competition will prevent collaboration. We also feel that the foundation idea does not involve enough in the way of local connection. That is what we are trying to explore. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Part of our reason for tabling the amendments and new clause relates to the academies that we have discussed already. Academies are supposed to replace failing schools. The Government insist that the sponsors involved in academies are philanthropic. However, the Committee has agreed, from the evidence of the handful that are up and running so far, that admissions and exclusion policies are being used to weed out the more difficult, ill-disciplined and hard-to-teach children.
With the educational climate as it is, focusing on exam results, league tables, Ofsted reports and nationwide comparisons, it is natural that those who run schools will focus on improving their standing in those areas on which they are publicly judged. The key point is that, by contrast to what applies to academies, trust sponsors are not even obliged to sponsor a failing or coasting school. Where is the incentive to get involved with a school that is failing? For those reasons we believe that there should be collaboration, and in the community learning trust model, with groups of schools, the problem is avoided.
At the moment, we rely on the good will of those setting up foundations. Surely it is better to have some safeguards to protect against such cherry-picking. The Secretary of State said on Second Reading:
“The Bill will help us to raise standards in our schools, especially the under-performing schools in our most challenging communities.”—[Official Report, 3 March 2006; Vol. 443,c. 1474.]
That is unlikely to happen if foundations are able to cherry-pick the best schools with which to work. That would merely solidify a two-tier system, with foundation schools at the top and LEA community schools at the bottom.
A further potential problem is one that we have seen with academies, which is that an LEA has a vested interest not in a particular school but in promoting the achievements of all schools in its area, whereas a trust, even one set up in a poorly performing school, may be tempted to improve its results at the expense of other schools in the area by cherry-picking pupils.
Why are we so afraid of federation and collaboration? As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East said, sharing teaching expertise wouldhelp failing schools. We could also share school management. In my constituency, the excellently performing school Prince Henry’s grammar school, a comprehensive school, has lent its head teacher to a famous school in Bradford, yet the school’s leadership remains excellent. Both schools have therefore benefited. There is a shortage of head teachers, so why not use that model of collaboration?

John Hayes: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s passion for that sort of sharing. Both he and the hon. Member for Brent, East made some good points about extending that to other agencies, other providers and others with an interest in education. However, I do not understand why that would exclude support for a single school. As my hon. Friend said, some who want to get involved with education at the moment want to get involved with a specific school, but that is not necessarily a principle for collaboration.

Christopher Chope: Order. I think that is long enough.

Greg Mulholland: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but more than one institution has to be involved or it cannot be a federation. It could be a primary and a secondary school, or a secondary school and a further education college. There are different ways of doing it, but that is a necessary principle.
I turn to a subject that I know interests the hon. Gentleman—special educational needs provision. Not all schools can afford or even find sufficient SEN support. Again, why cannot schools work together? We accept that collaboration happens now without the need for formal relationships. We believe that formal relationships via a community learning trust would ensure that trust schools could not opt out of existing informal arrangements, which would guarantee such relationships where they currently do not yet exist.
Finally, I turn to governors. It is a question of accountability. I am sorry, Mr. Chope, but that subject comes under the next group of amendments.
I am surprised at the comments of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. We suggest an approach that involves collaboration, that enshrines local connection and that has far more local accountability. Those are the principles that the Liberal Democrats are trying to bring to the Bill.

Angela Smith: I shall try to be brief. I challenge the notion suggested by the Liberal Democrats that collaboration is necessarily prevented by schools running in an independent fashion. We should remember that further education institutions are already independent, and the Liberal Democrats have never once suggested that FE institutions are not capable of working in collaboration with local schools. Indeed, they say that it already happens. Collaboration can be just as effective with a group of schools working independently as it is in the local authority community model that we are using at the moment.
Indeed, the model that we should have in mind when discussing this clause is that of a strategic framework developed by a local authority, the commissioner of local provision. Within that collaborative strategic framework, we need to have schools working with outside partners to develop expertise, to innovate and, perhaps most importantly—it is certainly the most important point for me—engaging employers in the work of our schools.
It has taken us a long time to get to grips withthat difficulty. Nationally, we have businesses thatdesperately want to engage with the education system and schools that say, “We want employers to take more of an interest in our work. We need our young people to be engaged with employers and to have meaningful work experience that develops career pathways through to employment.” However, neither of the sectors has ever quite managed to achieve its ambition. Trust schools are perhaps the means by which real collaboration between employers and schools can develop.
In Sheffield, we already have a model similar to that. We have a collaborative framework that tries to engage employers directly with schools by taking employers’ representatives on to governing bodies. However, that has not proved to be enough, so we need to go a stage further. A strategic framework, if it is properly managed and if the political will is there, can also cover special educational needs, looked-after children and exclusion and behavioural issues. There is no reason to believe that charitable trusts will be opposed to ensuring thatproblems relating to behaviour and exclusion are equally shared around a local authority area. If the political will is there—and commissioners who have to ensure thatit is there are knitted into the strategic framework—there is no reason for it not to work.
We need to broaden the idea of what a trust can be. Everybody is imagining that the trusts will be restricted to private enterprise and to McDonald’s-type outfits. The way to denigrate a model is to apply the lowest common denominator. Let us just think more imaginatively and creatively.

Greg Mulholland: I am sure that the hon. Lady realises that broadening the concept of trusts is precisely what we seek to do with this new clause and amendments. Does she not accept that?

Angela Smith: All I see is an attempt to denigrate trusts and the possibility of their working in a collaborative manner. In my city we have Sheffield Theatres, a charitable trust, which could work well with our performing arts specialist schools. That could do effective work for children in our city. We also have a sports trust, which runs some of the best international sporting facilities in the country and most of our leisure centres. There could be very exciting opportunities for employment, sports science and the development of expertise among our young people if that trust were to work with our sports specialist schools.
More than anything else, we need an engineering trust in Sheffield. Our city desperately needs engineering skills for the future. It was built on engineering and I am confident that most parents and other citizens would welcome an engineering trust.

Meg Hillier: This might not be connected to an engineering trust, but does my hon. Friend see the scope for a co-operative school to be established following models that exist under co-operatives and social enterprises?

Angela Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for that important point. I would not rule out any possibility in terms of forming charitable trusts so long as it fell within the framework of our guidance. We have to be creative.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Angela Smith: I will now move to a conclusion. I think that I have made the case for viewing the trust model in a perhaps more creative and imaginative way than has been recognised by the Liberal Democrats. I shall finish by making another point about special educational needs, because the trust model should apply equally to special schools.
The possibility of bringing innovation and best practice into the system is more relevant to the special needs population and to special needs education than any other. We need to personalise learning for children with special needs as much as we can. That area of practice needs innovation. So many charities are working in the field of special educational needs that it cannot be beyond the realms of possibility to imagine charitable trusts that are set up to exploit and use the expertise that is available out there in the special needs sector.
I do not want to tie particular charities down to an arrangement that I have not even discussed with them, but if we think things through, the National Autistic Society, for instance, could engage with our schools to use their expertise successfully. The society is in touch with parents and the professionals, so let us think through what we can do with the model. It offers a way forward that will help to personalise learning for children and expand the opportunities available to them, including their career opportunities in the long term.

Jacqui Smith: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith). She has injected precisely what we need in this Committee, which is a bit of inspiration, creativity and excitement about what the proposals in the Bill and the next stage of reform could mean. I thank her for that.
The combined effect of amendments Nos. 353 and 354 and new clause 6 would be to provide that the governing body of an existing foundation or foundation special school could publish or implement proposals to acquire a trust only if it met certain conditions on involving other schools in the trust. Specifically, all proposals by an existing foundation or foundation school to acquire a trust under the Bill would have to contain either at least two secondary schools within six miles of each other or two primary schools within six miles of each other.
New clause 6 would allow other organisations to be partners in a trust. Although I recognise that the list in the new clause is not exhaustive or prescriptive, there are nevertheless a number of obvious omissions, such as parent and community groups, businesses and the interesting examples that my hon. Friend identified as potential partners. The hon. Member for Brent, East has made it clear that her intention with amendments Nos. 353 and 354 and new clause 6 is to probe—I hope that it is only to probe—the extent to which trusts would support collaborations. My criticism is of the narrow view and the constraining effect on the ability of trusts to contribute to schools and standards in the way that we would want them to.
The proposals relating to collaboration are unnecessary. A wide range of collaborations between different types of schools are already flourishing, as many hon. Members have mentioned. Schools are already collaborating effectively to deliver a broad 14-to-19 curriculum. We have promoted collaboration through, among other things, the excellence in cities programme. Soft federations are developing in local areas. As the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland) rightly said, there are some very effective head teachers working with other schools to drive up standards—not just in his constituency, but throughout the country, and quite often supported through some of the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust’s projects—and, of course, academies and trusts will be encouraged to collaborate, and support and challenge each other, in the same way as are schools.
I do not think that any Member has argued against the potential benefits that a wide range of collaboration can bring. The amendments, and the approach behind them, are fundamentally wrong. It is not undesirable for a number of schools, primary or secondary, to work together in a trust. Far from it; that could be an excellent model. We have suggested previously, as an example of good practice, that a charitable incorporated trust could provide the necessary long-term relationship and framework to allow a network of schools to collaborate in order to help to raise standards and share best practice.
In case the hon. Member for Brent, East comes back at me and says, “Well, you have just identified a whole range of ways in which schools are already working collaboratively,” the problem with trusts is that too often those collaborations are based on ad hoc arrangements. Sometimes heroic individuals have helped to form that collaboration, and when they move on they take with them that expertise. One of the big contributions that the trust model could make would be to enable a more permanent route through.
On Second Reading, the Secretary of State referred to, and I think that I did too in an earlier part of the Committee stage, a presentation in Downing street from a group of headteachers who are working already in successful schools, but helping also to drive up standards in schools performing less well. They suggested that that is why federation could be an important way of raising standards for children, and an example of how trusts might be of great benefit.

John Hayes: The right hon. Lady is making a persuasive case for why we need a diverse approach to a diverse range of needs. She said that it would be useful, sometimes, to use trust schools to make permanent the best features of collaboration, but will she accept that sometimes there is a need for a particular counter-dynamic and so collaboration would be right sometimes, but less relevant or pertinent later on? The flexibility that she described works both ways.

Jacqui Smith: I think that the hon. Gentleman is right. Trusts might well be an important way in which to bring permanence to collaborations, and enable us to bring in external partners for support.
We are not arguing, however, that they would be the only way in which schools could collaborate. Trust schools might well be engaged in other local collaborations—perhaps a 14-to-19 collaboration that was not part of a trust arrangement. So developing a trust arrangement, even in collaboration with other schools, would not limit their ability to work in partnership with other schools, perhaps locally or with other networks of which a school might be part.
The trouble with the amendments is that not only would they require certain types of partnerships between schools in all cases involving a trust, but they would prevent a number of potentially positive collaborations. For example, isolated rural secondary schools that might be more than six miles from the nearest other secondary school would be denied the opportunity of working together in a trust. They would rule out also the possibility of trusts supporting a network or partnership of schools at opposite ends of the country using perhaps IT links to share good practice; and the option also of a trust involving one primary and one secondary school. Headteachers in some areas are thinking about what the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole described as vertical federations. We could envisage the possibility of vertical trusts, but that would be ruled out by the amendments.
Furthermore, valuable as can be the possibility of having another school as an external partner in a trust, it would not be the most appropriate model for all trusts. I do not think that it should be for central Government to try to second guess or pre-empt local decisions. Dare I say to the hon. Member for Brent, East, who has been making that case in relation to other amendments, that the decision on what kind of trust would be most appropriate to the individuals of each school is one that is best taken locally by the governing body of that school? Of course withinthe decision-making process there will be local accountability, which we have set out in considerably more detail in the statutory guidance to decision makers that I made available to the Committee this morning. The matter is best taken in a way that does not assume that one size fits all, and that fulfils our desire to ensure that all children can access an education tailored specifically to them.
The rationale behind trusts is to allow schools to raise standards by strengthening collaboration and drawing on the expertise and energy of their partners to support strategic leadership. They will be backed by an organisation that shares their aspirations for their pupils, knows their community, can support their continuing improvement and provides them with governors. There will not be a single model for ensuring that that happens; schools need to be able to choose with whom to work and how, in order to support the needs and aspirations of their pupils and local communities.
Different bodies will of course bring different perspectives, experience and skills to support certain aspects of a school’s mission. We have spelled out in the other document that I have made available, “What trust schools could offer”, quite a few scenarios showing types of partnerships that could benefit schools. Without being exhaustive, I shall give a few examples.
There could be a partnership, as we have heard, between a successful school and a weaker school, offering opportunities to both parties to enhance leadership skills. A trust could be formed by higher education institutions and universities, using their particular expertise to help schools better to prepare young people for advanced study, to provide important progression routes to or help schools to tap into subject specialisms in the institutions.
A group of schools spread throughout the country could work with a single trust and incorporate a business or charitable foundation, or follow examples such as the Mercers’ Company or others that hon. Members have identified. A national network of schools could provide expertise in developing specialist subjects in the curriculum. Employers could play a role, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough rightly said, in the ways that she identified in her examples and by talking locally about the contribution of theatres and sports trusts.
A trust could be established by businesses and local partners to support schools across a community, for example in a regeneration area, to bring in links with regeneration work and create new opportunities for children to help to meet their individual needs.
All of those possibilities are examples of collaboration, for which the hon. Member for Brent, East has argued but which would be ruled out by the tightly constrained way in which her amendment is written. There may be many circumstances in which it would be best for more than one school to have a shared trust, but not all schools will find it necessary or appropriate to work in a trust with others. For example, Southend-on-Sea borough council is working in partnership with Prospects college, a vocational training provider, to establish in Southend a trust school with leading-edge vocational specialism. It is an exciting initiative, bringing together vocational provision on one site. It links only to one school, but it is precisely the sort of contribution to vocational provision, in a school that has had a difficult time, that I would have thought would be welcomed by the hon. Lady. Her amendment would rule it out.
Of course I take seriously the concern that the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West identified as cherry picking. We are completely clear that the benefits of trust status must be used to drive improvement and provide support and capacity for the schools and children that most need it. That is why the schools commissioner will play a key role in ensuring that schools in disadvantaged areas are able to benefit from trusts; in encouraging potential trusts to focus their interest on weaker schools and those in disadvantaged areas that are in the greatest need of support; and in encouraging schools in disadvantaged areas to think about how a trust could not only be beneficial to the school and its pupils but bring about wider changes and gains for the local community. As I have said, for schools wishing to work with other schools, trusts will be one option that we hope they will consider, but there will continue to be other options.
I understand that these were probing amendments, and I take the hon. Lady’s assurance that she can see the benefits that can come from trust status and from the external support and drive that we believe it will bring. I hope that she recognises that her amendments would limit that innovation and creativity and will, therefore, withdraw them.

Sarah Teather: We tabled the amendments and new clause 6 to probe what the Government meant by their trust model and how committed they were to a model of collaboration, rather than a highly competitive model. I am grateful for the Minister’s clarifications and I accept her point that the amendment has been drafted so tightly that it excludes some of the things that we particularly wanted to include. However, its intention was to generate debate and to get on record the commitment that the Government have to a collaborative model, and many of the Minister’s comments were helpful.
I am not entirely satisfied that there is not still rather contradictory rhetoric coming from different parts of Government about a collaborative versus a competitive model for education. We remain rather concerned about rhetoric surrounding independence and whether this may be taken to be a disincentive to collaboration. However, I am grateful for the Minister’s reassurance and I take seriously the technical criticisms that she made about our amendment. Therefore, we will go away to consider whether we wish to bring forward some of our points in a different format on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

David Chaytor: I beg to move amendment No. 188, in clause 17, page 12, line 30, leave out paragraphs (c)and (d).

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 101, in clause 17, page 12, line 39, at end insert—
‘(g) any change involving an increase in the number of pupils that may be admitted to the school or an enlargement of the premises in any case in which, in the opinion of the local education authority concerned, such change would, to any material extent, prevent that authority, or the governing body of any other school maintained by that authority, from performing and carrying out the duties and functions in relation to education imposed upon them by this or any other enactment.'.
No. 339, in clause 17, page 12, line 39, at end insert—
‘(g) any change of the admissions criteria of the school, unless by agreement with the governors of that school.'.
No. 102, in clause 19, page 14, line 14, at end insert—
‘(m) prohibiting approval of any alteration involving the expansion of a school in any case in which such expansion may be considered detrimental to the opportunities available to the local education authority or to the governing body of a maintained school in its area to satisfy obligations imposed by this or any other enactment.'.

David Chaytor: The amendment deals with the capacity of an existing foundation school to change its status to a community school. It would delete the text in clause 17 that prevents that from happening. That would have been entirely logical and rational if the Bill reflected the unadulterated, pure spirit of the original White Paper, which prevented local authorities from opening new community schools, meaning that foundation schools would not be able to transfer their status to become community schools.
However, the situation is different now. The Government have, in my view, listened carefully and sensiblyto those who argued that there was a case for local authorities to open and build new community schools, and my right hon. Friend the Minister has set out carefully the criteria by which local authorities would be able to do that. She has also outlined conditions that would go further than that, which would require local authorities not to hold competitions for certain new schools. Now, given that local authorities have been giventhe capacity to open new community schools, we are accepting implicitly that the community school is avalid model, which can deliver as effectively as other schools the higher standards that we all seek, and it is contradictory, therefore, to deny certain foundation schools the right to become community schools.
Realistically, I do not think that many schools with foundation status would choose that option. However, the possibility must exist. Certain circumstances in some parts of the country might lead foundation schools to welcome the option: for example, where a foundation school was struggling; where the governors were demoralised or inadequate, or both; where the management and leadership had not delivered the right vision for the school, had not succeeded in driving up standards and did not have the immediate prospect of attracting more pupils; and where the foundation school was located in a high-performing local authority. I have said before that I am slightly sceptical of the argument that there is a direct relationship between the quality of an individual school and the quality of its local authority. However, in those circumstances, it would certainly be logical for the foundation school and governing body to have the right to apply for community status.
Amendment No. 101 takes us back to the implications of the expansion of individual schools. I do not want to go through the arguments that were made when we discussed a previous group of amendments. This amendment would simply mean that any proposal to expand the numbers in an individual school must be set within the context of the impact on the local authority and on neighbouring schools. Amendment No. 102 deals with the same issue in a subsequent clause.
We have demonstrated how the future expansion of one individual school cannot be seen in isolation. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton gave us an interesting anecdote about the attempts of the Montessori school in Brighton to expand. His view would be different, but I think that we have to accept that the decision was probably the result of a lengthy period of local consultation and the culmination of the considered view of all other schools in the area, as reflected by the local authority, that there would be damaging consequences if that school were allowed to expand.
We have to take account of the instability that can be injected into the system if one school exercises an automatic right to increase its numbers. Of course, the local taxpayer faces wider costs if that has a damaging effect on neighbouring schools. The Government have already accepted that such decisions cannot be taken in isolation. I welcome the commitment in the further education White Paper, to which my hon. Friendthe Under-Secretary referred this morning, to the presumption of expansion in favour of sixth-form colleges to counterbalance the presumption of expansion of sixth forms in schools, as well as the opening of new sixth forms in schools. I am not sure what happens when we have two simultaneous presumptions in favour of mutually contradictory objectives, but that is a matter that the Government will have to resolve as the policy progresses.
What would happen in the case of a single-sex school that was hugely popular and wished to increase its numbers? Is it not obviously the case that if that school increased its numbers, it would have a direct, distorting effect on the balance of the sexes in at least one neighbouring school and probably more? That seems to me the most obvious example of where plans to expand should be set within the wider context. That is why amendment No. 101 makes it clear that expansion plans should not be permitted if they would prevent other schools from carrying out their duties.
Finally, I want to refer to the question of those schools that select wholly or partly by ability. The Government have said explicitly on previous occasions that schools that select wholly by ability will not be able to expand. My recollection of the debate on Second Reading is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that schools that select partly by ability will not now be able to expand. First, where in the Bill is that restriction made clear? Secondly, for those schools that select partly by ability, does the embargo on future expansion apply to the total numbers admitted to the school or to the percentage of those admitted who are selected by ability?

Nick Gibb: With the exception of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), this group of amendments is yet another backdoor attempt to thwart some of the Bill’s main principles. In moving amendment No. 188, the hon. Member for Bury, North claimed that it was the logical conclusion of the concessions that were made on enabling local authorities to propose a community school. He wants to take that concession one stage further, which should be a lesson to the Minister, because if she gives people an inch, they will want to take a mile.
Leaving paragraphs (c) and (d) out of the list of alterations that may not be made to a school would simply make it possible for a voluntary foundation or voluntary school to go back to being a community school. Given that the overwhelming majority of schools are community schools, that would be a retrograde step. There are 10,961 community primary schools and 2,193 community secondary schools, but there are only 3,754 voluntary aided primary schools and 559 voluntary aided secondary schools. Overall, community schools represent 63 per cent. of the total. If we want to create a more diverse range of schools, the last thing we should be doing is creating more of the schools that already dominate.
The Government were right to create a one-way, Yale-lock system for the adoption of foundation status. Subject to all the safeguards in clause 23 about removing a foundation, we support the Government’s policy in that regard and therefore oppose amendment No. 188.

David Chaytor: If 50 parents submitted a request for a foundation school to revert to being a community school would the hon. Gentleman not wish to support their request?

Nick Gibb: No, because the purpose of the Bill, and the direction in which the Government seek to move education policy—a direction with which we agree—is to create a more diverse range of schools. Allowing more community schools to be established would contradict a direction of travel that will lead to the higher standards and higher quality of education that we all want in our schools.
Amendments Nos. 101 and 102 would prevent a school from admitting more pupils or expanding its premises if, in the opinion of the local education authority, that would prevent other schools in the area from performing their existing functions and duties. Again, the amendments would prevent or limit the expansion of good schools. They would undo the measures in the Bill to sweep away the bureaucratic and entrenched interests that have until now been highly successful in preventing good schools from expanding. They would not so much reintroduce a surplus places rule as reintroduce school organisation committees, or at least the effects that SOCs had in terms of atrophying the system.
It is important that we do all that we can to make it easier, not more difficult, for good schools to expand if they wish to do so. We have a shortage of places for pupils at good schools, and instead of endlessly debating how we allocate those places, we should all be working out how to increase the number of good schools and the number of places at them. That is why I am so astonished that anyone should table amendments to make that objective more difficult. The Conservative party wants more good schools and more places at good schools. We will therefore oppose amendments Nos. 101 and 102 if they are pressed to a vote.
On the point about whether changes that are made to one school will impact on others, it would be helpful if the Minister could clear up an issue that has emerged from our reading of the draft guidance to decision makers, which was circulated at the end of this morning’s sitting. Paragraph 3 states that one factor to be taken into account in deciding whether to acquire a trust should be
“Concerns that the Trust will have a negative impact on school standards”.
On page 8, under a heading relating to the factors that local authorities need to consider when deciding whether to refer a proposal for a trust to the adjudicator, the guidance similarly states that one factor will be
“Concern that the Trust will have a negative impact on standards.”
However, under the next heading, which relates to the factors that the school’s adjudicator or the school governing body needs to consider when deciding whether to acquire a trust, the guidance states that one factor will be whether the trust
“will contribute to raising standards at the school”.
The question, therefore, is whether the first two phrases that I quoted refer to standards at the school acquiring a trust or whether they need to reflect the possibility that the acquisition of a trust in that school will impact on standards in other schools. I had not thought that they meant that until I saw the wording on the bottom of page 8, which specifically refers to standards at the school. Some clarification from the Minister on this point would be helpful.
I believe that the decision by one particular school to acquire a trust should have no impact on standards at other schools. If it makes a school better or increases standards, that is very welcome and is the whole objective of these measures. If by raising standards the school becomes more popular, that again is the objective. There is an underlying current of opinion among some Labour rebels—there are indications of this among the Liberals too—that the problem with trying to create schools with higher standards by, for example, acquiring a trust is that it creates a two-tier system and that because a two-tier system must be wrong, we should not attempt the reform.
We already have a two-tier system in the state sector. There is a wide gap between the two tiers: there are the excellent and good schools on the one hand and the underperforming and coasting schools on the other. The reforms in the Bill will help to narrow that gap by raising standards, and the trust school element of the reforms is crucial to that.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I shall speak briefly to amendments Nos. 101 and 102. These are probing amendments to try to test whether those proposing a trust would consider the likely impact of the trust, particularly if it would expand, on neighbouring schools. I want to thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for sending round the guidance for decision makers who are proposing trusts. It is enormously helpful. We can see from the guidance that the impact not only on neighbouring schools but on other bodies that are likely to be affected by the trust is something that those proposing trusts must consider.
Does the Minister agree that in many instances—I can give examples from my constituency—schools are likely to pursue trust status with partners with whom they have already developed a relationship? For example, where there is a centre for vocational excellence it is likely that the school will build on those partnerships. The guidance is very helpful in that regard and should allay some of the concerns that people have about trusts.

Sarah Teather: I want to speak very briefly in favour of amendment No. 188. As the hon. Member for Bury, North said, it does not appear to be logical, given the other concessions that the Government have made, for them to continue to constrain schools so that they cannot reverse their foundation status if they sowish. As the hon. Gentleman said, there may be circumstances in which parents are very unhappy with the way in which the school is being governed and about the management of the school. They may wish to revert to community status. It does not seem logical for those schools then not to be able to do so.
Will the Minister tell us how the proposals in clause 23 apply here? I know that they come later in the Bill but they are relevant to this amendment. I hope that she will use the opportunity to discuss those proposals here. I am very sympathetic towards the intention behind amendments Nos. 101 and 102. There is a need to balance the effects of excessive expansion of a particular school on those in the surrounding area. We know that if school rolls begin to fall, particularly if they begin to fall dramatically, there is a financial impact on those schools. The school can then spiral into decline and that may have dire consequences for schools that may otherwise be popular and good schools. It leaves the students at those schools in a difficult position. We support amendment No. 188 and are very sympathetic towards amendments Nos. 101 and 102.

Edward Leigh: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bury, North when he moves an amendment. As we were walking down the Committee corridor to the Division earlier, I said that he and I were the two outriders in the Committee. I like to think that he is a man of principle who has a certain vision. I must admit that my vision is slightly different from his. No doubt that plays into the hands of the Minister because she can say that it shows that she has it right: she represents the middle way or the third way. Was it not Aneurin Bevan who said that he who walks in the middle of the road sometimes gets knocked over?

Phil Hope: That is the Liberals.

Edward Leigh: Well the Liberals on this Committee are not in the middle of the road, they are driving on the left.
The hon. Member for Bury, North will forgive me if I do not support his amendment, even though I can understand the logic of what he is trying to achieve throughout the proceedings on this Bill. He believes—I hope that I am not doing him a disservice—in democratic control of the nation’s schools, which he thinks is best vested in democratically elected local authorities. That is a perfectly logical point of view. Sadly, that model has not worked.

David Chaytor: I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman says that. As we were walking together, precisely at the moment when we reached the Lobby, I was about to explain to him exactly what I did believe, which is not quite what he says I believe. Perhaps that is a discussion for another occasion.

Edward Leigh: You know, this is a real page-turner, is it not, Mr. Chope? We are now desperate to know the end of the conversation. It is not for me to say what the hon. Gentleman believes in, but I can say what I believe in. My vision is of maintained schools becoming independent charitable trusts—all of them. Therefore, I cannot support any amendment that seems to make it easier for those schools that have more independence, namely voluntary aided schools and foundation schools, to become community schools. Anyway, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said, given that63 per cent. of schools are already community schools, there is no point in any more schools becoming community schools because—this is where I support the Minister—we want to create choice and diversity.
Amendment No. 339 relates to subsection (4). It gives the Secretary of State power to make alterations and, as I said in similar circumstances in an earlier debate, I fully support the exceptions that are listed under the heading
“None of the following alterations may be made to a maintained school—”
However, there is an omission from the list of categories. Why is it that, apparently, the Secretaryof State can make alterations to the admissions criteria of a school? Why are those crucial admissions criteria not listed? Is it just an oversight, or is there a hidden agenda?
My amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from ordering any change to the admissions criteria of a school unless the governing body of that school agreed to it. Why is that important? Unless the amendment is accepted, the Secretary of State will have the power—the Minister can deny this when she rises; that is why these debates are useful—to order a school to impose a certain catchment area; to apply a test of parental commitment; or to cease to apply a test of ability for admissions, as is done for grammar schools. We already know that the Minister does not want the existing 164 or 165 grammar schools to expand. Could there be—I am sure that the Minister will deny this, in which case my amendment will have served some purpose—some power now vested in the Secretary of State that allows her to interfere in the tests of ability that apply in the few remaining grammar schools?
It is well known that while the Conservative party recognises that there is unlikely to be any great expansion of grammar schools, we are certainly not opposed to the existing ones. They are extremely popular and provide a test of excellence.

John Hayes: My hon. Friend is right, of course, to celebrate the excellent work done in grammar schools, including those in his and my constituencies. However, he may have hit on an even more ingenious point than he supposes, because presumably a future Secretary of State, at some indeterminate point in time, could, by the same means, encourage schools that do not at present do so to select by academic ability. If the power to remove that capacity exists, the power to impose it must logically exist. All members of the Committee, including the hon. Member for Bury, North, can therefore support the amendments with alacrity.

Edward Leigh: If I were the hon. Member for Bury, North I should be extremely worried about that. Could there be a hidden agenda to work in the opposite way? There is something curious, is there not, about the list in subsection (4)? It seems quite comprehensive—for instance, given what I said earlier, I am very pleased about paragraph (a) under which no change
“in the religious character of the school”
may be made; I believe that schools should be able to preserve their ethos. However, just as important to many parents—perhaps more important than religious character if we are considering all schools—are the admissions criteria. Those have been at the heart of political debate for half a century, so we need to know why there is no mention of admissions criteria in the Minister’s list.

Jacqui Smith: It is worth remembering that clause 17 deals with a range of prescribed alterations and subsequent clauses deal with the processes for proposing alterations. We have had a broad discussion about the possible range of the prescribed alterations. I shall discuss the reason for not including admissions in the clause towards the end of my remarks.
There is a certain amount of truth in the accusation by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that when we agreed that, in the case of new schools, there might be an argument for a community school in some circumstances, we opened the door slightly to the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North for amendment No. 188. I disagree with my hon. Friend that the logic of our position on new schools implies the logic of his amendment.
We have, of course, established arrangements to deal with the circumstances of new schools. We think that those are the right arrangements and that the decision about entry into the competition should be for the Secretary of State. The amendment, however, does something rather different. It would make it possible to change the category of an existing foundation or voluntary school, which it was planned would continue in operation, to that of a community school.
We have, I think, made it pretty clear, and I have certainly made it clear in debating the relevant provisions, that our vision and policy is for the local authority to enhance its new role as a commissioner, rather than a direct supplier, of education services, and for the school increasingly to enhance its role with the support of external partners and the bringing in of similar capacity; the impetus that comes from the self-determination of a foundation or voluntary aided school is likely to help it to focus on improvements that need to be made for its pupils and in its work in with the community. That has been the objective of the Bill and the reform.
Interestingly, my hon. Friend used the example of a failing school. He talked, I think, about demoralised governors, and suggested that as a possible justification for changing from foundation or, presumably, voluntary aided status to that of a community school. I think that if a foundation or voluntary aided school is in such a state that it needs greatly increased local authority control, a change of category is unlikely to be an adequate or appropriate solution. If the failure is very extreme, as we will discuss later in the Bill, a better solution might be for the school to close and to make a completely fresh start. Although there might be an option for it to be a community school, it does not necessarily follow that a community school would be the best solution. A competition might be just what was needed to bring in a range of possible approaches that would increase dynamism and a sense of possibility in the school.
In the case of the high-performing local authority to which my hon. Friend referred, as the Bill makes clear, it is able to work in that school improvement role with all schools, regardless of their category. A school would not need to change from foundation status to community status in order to benefit from a high-performing local authority that put an emphasis on standards, which drove improvement through the way in which it operated.

David Chaytor: It is clear from the draft guidance which my hon. Friend circulated this morning that in the case of a trust school, that is, a foundation school with a foundation, that collapses completely, the assets and the functioning of the school will revert automatically to the local authority. If we accept that the local authority should take over responsibility fora school that faces complete collapse, is it not inconsistent that the local authority should not have a role in the case of a school whose governing body is trying to prevent complete collapse by asking to be taken back into the local authority?

Jacqui Smith: The position with respect to assets is that if the relationship with the trust were broken the assets would revert to the governing body of the foundation school. Those assets would revert to the local authority only in the case of complete closure.
My hon. Friend is conflating two separate issues: the correct protection in the long run of public assets, as spelt out in the arrangements with respect to a trust school, and the various approaches that could be taken to a school that was failing or was challenged. In those circumstances, a decision by the governing body to change its status is not the appropriate way to deal with failure or its lack of morale. With the support of the school’s commissioner, looking to a trust that might be able to support and reinvigorate the leadership and governance of the school is more likely to be an effective way forward for the school.
I do not want to labour the point further. We envisage a new framework for schools and local authorities in which the local authority is the champion of parents and assures the quality of provision rather than being the direct supplier. We propose a more dynamic system of self-governing schools with the confidence to take charge of their own development, and the amendment runs contrary to it. That is why I oppose the amendment.

Sarah Teather: Does the Minister accept that there may be other circumstances in addition to those outlined by the hon. Member for Bury, North where the school may be failing? There may be other circumstances in which parents are unhappy with the ethos or direction of the school without it necessarily failing and they may wish to change that ethos by bringing it back under the remit of the local authority. Are those not valid concerns, which they should be allowed to pursue?

Jacqui Smith: In those circumstances, if the parents were unhappy with the school’s trust partner, there are the proposals in clause 23 that enable the removal of that trust. We have identified a range of ways in the Bill to give parents a stronger voice in what happens within schools, including a duty on the governing body to respond to parents. I do not believe that the change to community status would assuage parents’ concerns in the sorts of circumstances that are under discussion, and this would certainly run counter to the new role we envisage for local authorities.
Turning to amendments Nos. 101 and 102 on expansion, we are determined to transform the school system so that it responds better to parents’ needs and aspirations. We want every parent to feel confident that the system is delivering for their child, and that they can choose a place at an excellent school that is more dynamic, with weak schools replaced quickly by new ones, with coasting schools pushed to improve, and with the best schools able to spread their influence and success throughout the system.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear in her letter to the Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee, we are also aware of concerns about how the expansion of individual schools fits in with the strategic role of the local authority. We believe that schools that are popular with local parents and that wish to expand should normally be able to do so. That is why there is currently a presumption in statutory guidance that proposals for the expansion of successful and popular schools should be improved.
What is new in the Bill are the decision-making powers reverting to the local authority, as opposedto the school organisation committee. School organisation committees will be abolished, and their powers will be transferred to the local authority. Guidance to local authorities will make it clear that there should be no arbitrary obstacles preventing good school expansion. However, school expansion will not be a free-for-all; it will be for local authorities to make decisions on whether a school’s proposal to expand should be approved. In reaching any decision, the local authority—or the adjudicator, if it is referred—will consider the impact on overall standards in an area. The school may appeal to the adjudicator, who will consider the individual merits of the case on the basis of statutory guidance.
Let me now respond to the point of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. My view on the guidance is clear; notwithstanding what I have said in respect of expansion—that the local authority may want to consider that, and it is the role of the local authority to address standards throughout an area—the governing body, which is the decision maker in respect of determining whether to take on a trust, will want to make that decision on the basis of the impact on standards within a particular school. That is the clear intention in this guidance, which is for decision makers.
Let me now return to expansion. Expansion will not be the answer for every good school. Reasons such as the size of the school, the nature of the site or parental wishes may mean that expansion is not the right option. That is why we accept that schools could spread their expertise in a different way. They could form joint ventures, or federate with other local schools to share best practice, to pool resources or to offer pupils and staff a wider range of opportunities.
Before I move away from expansion, let me cover the specific point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North about wholly selective and partially selective schools. We will make clear in guidance to decision makers the route through which expansion proposals are represented; that is not a legislative route. The presumption should be that there will not be an expansion of schools that are wholly selective. Because we have been clear that we do not want new selection by ability, for schools that are partially selective expansion would be limited to expansion of non-selective places. That would lead to a reduction in the proportion of selective places in a school, if the number of places expanded.

David Chaytor: Does that not provide an interesting precedent for the policy towards wholly selective schools, by allowing such schools to expand, but only on condition that they expand with a non-selective intake?

Jacqui Smith: That is an interesting challenge. That would involve a complete change to their admissions arrangements which would take us considerably further beyond simply proposals in respect to expansion. In legislation as well as guidance to decision makers,they are clearly in a different category of school. A distinction is made in law between schools that are wholly selective—the guidance is clear that they should not expand—and schools that are partially selective.

Annette Brooke: I would be grateful if the Minister helped me with the definition of “expansion”. Reorganisation might take place in my area, with the age of transfer decreasing from 12 to 11. By definition of the grammar school system, more pupils will be in the selective system after the change in the age of transfer. Is that covered by her statement that there will be no more selection?

Jacqui Smith: That is a very interesting point. Perhaps I could get back to the hon. Lady about that. I can say, though, that the other driver for expansion—access to the capital pot that we have made available to fund the expansion of popular and successful schools—will not be available to selective schools or for selective places in partially selective schools. The two routes for determining expansion, which are guidance to decision makers and funding, are clear in those circumstances.
My worry about the amendments is that, although I hope I have given hon. Members some reassurance, I would not want a situation in which a school expansion that made sense could effectively be prevented by a local authority. Of course it is important that local authorities consider the wider implications, but schools should not be held back artificially and the choice of parents restricted.
As commissioners of educational services, local authorities will need to act as the champions of pupils and parents to promote choice and diversity with respect, as we have discussed, to earlier provisions in the Bill, and they will have an important planning role. That will inform their decisions when planning how many schools their local area needs, where and how big those schools should be, what schools would serve the area best and whom they should serve.
Local authorities will draw up strategic plans for the pattern of schools in their area as part of their children and young people’s plan. They will map what is needed in their area, considering demographics and the balance of provision with respect to gender. That might address the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North raised. If I remember correctly—I will write to the Committee to correct myself if necessary—sex discrimination legislation now requires that during the planning process, local authorities ensure equal or relatively equal access to single-sex schools. That would have to be part of the strategic planning in the circumstances that my hon. Friend spelled out. Although I have disagreed with him on those circumstances, I hope that I have been sufficiently persuasive for him to withdraw his amendment.
I turn to the other outrider on the Committee and speak to amendment No. 339 on admissions. Clause 17, to which the amendments apply, provides for regulations to set out the changes to maintained schools, requiring the publication of statutory proposals called prescribed alterations in the legislation. The clause does not deal in any way with schools admissions, because those changes do not fall under the category of prescribed alterations, or the regime for dealing with them to which theclause relates. That is because a school’s admissions arrangements can be altered under three differentprocesses.
The first process is the normal annual consultation and determination for school admissions as set out in section 89 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. Admission authorities consult on their arrangements, determining them in the year prior to which they are to apply and including any changes that they may decide upon. In the case of foundation and voluntary aided schools, the governing body is the admissions authority; for community and voluntary controlled schools, it is the local authority.
The second way in which a school’s admissions arrangements can be changed is under the adjudication regime. Following consultation, the statutory consultees—broadly speaking, other schools in the area, the local authority, the admissions forum and, in certain circumstances, parents—can object to a school’s admission arrangements and the adjudicator will then reach a binding decision on the objection. We are also extending the adjudicator’s power to consider a school’s admissions arrangements in their entirety on submission of an objection, and for that decision to be binding for two years, rather than for one year as at present.
Those are the routes through which changes to admissions procedures can be made. I am aware, not least from other amendments that he has tabled, that the hon. Member for Gainsborough would rather that only schools themselves had the power to change admissions arrangements. However, it is clear from a minority of persistent cases that some schools seek to set admissions arrangements that are in the interests of the school itself rather than the interests of local children. It is important to put a strong adjudication process in place to ensure that all schools adopt fair admissions arrangements that increase choice for local parents.
Requiring changes to be agreed with the school’s governing body, as the amendment does, would regrettably not ensure in every case that the interests of parents and children were upheld.
Finally, regulations made under the Bill will set out procedures under which admissions arrangements can be modified to bring them into line with the admissions code as part of the approval process for statutory proposals to enlarge schools or to establish new ones.

Edward Leigh: That is quite a complicated reply, but am I right in saying that no Minister can use clause 17 to change admissions criteria?

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right. No Minister can use clause 17 to change admissions arrangements, because it relates to prescribed alterations and admissions arrangements do not come under that category. I shall quit while I am ahead, and invite my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North to withdraw the amendment.

David Chaytor: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her detailed reply. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

David Chaytor: I beg to move amendment No. 187, in clause 17, page 12, line 39, at end insert—
‘(g) a reduction in the statutory proportion of elected parent governors on a schools governing body.'.

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenientto discuss the following: Amendment No. 218, in clause 20, page 14, line 34, leave out
‘or a relevant change in the instrument of government'.
Amendment No. 219, in clause 20, page 14, line 37, leave out
‘or a relevant change in the instrument of government'.
Amendment No. 220, in clause 20, page 14, line 39, leave out subsection (2).
Amendment No. 221, in clause 20, page 15, line 5, leave out from ‘foundation' to end of line 6.
Amendment No. 222, in clause 20, page 15, line 10, leave out from ‘foundation' to ‘and' in line 11.
Amendment No. 223, in clause 20, page 15, line 14, leave out from ‘foundation' to end of line 15.
New clause 17—Foundation schools: independence of governing bodies from foundations—
‘The instrument of government for a foundation or foundation special school established pursuant to proposals made under section 7 may not provide for the majority of governors to be foundation governors nor may any alteration be made pursuant to proposals published under section 18 to the instrument of government of any foundation or foundation special school so as to provide for the majority of governors to be foundation governors.'.

David Chaytor: In the same way that the first of the previous set of amendments dealt with some inconsistencies that I thought were present in the policy towards community schools, this group of amendments deals with a similar set of inconsistencies in the attitude to parental involvement and influence. It is those issues that I wish to tease out.
Amendment No. 187 calls for a block on reducing the proportion of elected parent governors on school governing bodies. Amendments Nos. 218 to 223 would prevent a majority of the governing body from being given to one set of governors. New clause 17 would do the same, but in a slightly different form.
It is now nine minutes past 7 o'clock, and the Whip has indicated that we have to continue to complete consideration of clause 18. I spent some time on the previous amendment, so I shall be brief.
Had the original White Paper, the Government’s argument in favour of it and the Bill when finally published not put such emphasis on the importance of parent power, the amendments might not have been necessary. However, if we are to be consistent and if we are saying that the new system will be far more driven by parents than the current system, and that parents’ voices will be heard and given more attention, it seems illogical to squeeze them out of school governing bodies.
For 30 years, the governing bodies of most schools in the United Kingdom, although not all—I accept that the majority of the governing body of some schools is allocated to one set of individuals, or one group—have operated on the basis of a partnership between the representatives of parents, staff, the local authority and the wider community. Nobody is unaware of the difficulties of continuing to enthuse people to take part in their school governing body. It is sometimes extremely difficult to encourage parents to play a full role, but the partnership model seems to work well. It has wide support and it ensures an adequate line of accountability from the school and the local authority, and also between the school and the wider body of parents.
It seems illogical, therefore, that it will be possible to reduce the proportion of parents on a governing body and hand it over to a foundation, in the case of a governing body deciding to go down the trust school route. If the Government are insisting on that approach and on the importance of the foundation having the majority on the governing body, we need more compelling arguments than have yet been put and evidence that schools that already have a foundation providing the majority on the governing body have automatically been able to deliver higher standards. Where is the evidence of a direct relationship between that composition of a governing body and higher performance?
In that spirit and with those few arguments, I support the amendment.

Nick Gibb: Amendment No. 187 would prohibit a reduction in the proportion of elected parent governors on a school governing body. As members of the Committee know, the proportion of governorsof varying categories—whether parent, staff, LEA, community or foundation—is governed by the School Governance (Constitution) (England) Regulations 2003. According to paragraph 7.4 of the regulatory impact assessment, trust school governing bodies will have the same model as voluntary aided schools. The size of the governing body is determined by the instrument of government but must be no fewer than nine and no more than 20 governors, excluding sponsor governors or additional foundation governors.
The regulations also state that one third of governors of foundation schools shall be parent governors, but, according to the regulatory impact assessment, trust schools for which the trust appoints the majority of governors will have fewer elected parent governors than trust schools for which the trust appoints a minority of governors. The reason—this is an important quote—is because
“it is not feasible to provide for both (a) the Trust to appoint a majority of governors, and (b) the governing body to comprise one third elected parents (plus other categories of governors) without the governing body becoming unmanageably large.”
That can be demonstrated by a simple numerical example. Let us suppose that the instrument of government for a trust school provides for the bare minimum of LEA and staff governors—just one and two respectively. The trust then must determine the composition of the governing body in accordance with regulations that state that the number of foundation governors must outnumber the other governors by two. If the amendment was accepted, one third of the governors would have to be elected.
Therefore, if one does simultaneous equations, the minimum number of governors needed to satisfy the requirement would be one LEA governor, two staff governors and—if parent governors are to represent one third of the total number of governors and foundation governors are to outnumber the other governors by two—eight parent and 13 foundation governors. One plus two plus eight plus 13 equals 24. Twenty-four governors would be unwieldy, and the number is four more than the maximum in the regulations.

Jacqui Smith: I am impressed by the hon. Gentleman’s maths, but I am afraid that the matter is even more unwieldy than that, because he has left out of his equation staff governors and, I think, community governors. When they are included, the number becomes even larger than 24.

Nick Gibb: I thought that I had included both those categories, but we can debate the maths later. Either way, it is an unwieldy number. With a governing body numbering fewer than either my 24 or the number that the Minister comes up with, it is mathematically impossible for the trust to have a majority of two and for one third of the governors to be parents.

Sarah Teather: This is something of a circular argument. Surely the simple solution if we want to give priority to parent governors on the governing body is not to have a majority of governors appointed by the trust.

Nick Gibb: That goes to the root of the Bill. If we do not allow foundations to have a majority of governors, a lot of trusts will not be established. Perhaps that is the purpose of the amendment and the reason why the hon. Lady supports the amendment, if indeed she is. The effect of amendment No. 187 would be to create unwieldy trusts.
Amendment Nos. 218 to 223 would remove the right of a foundation to appoint the majority of the governing body, which would drive a coach and horses through the whole objective behind trust schools, which is to achieve diversity in the ethos and management of schools. It would also severely limit the number of charitable trusts that would come forward to set up trust schools.
Finally—I am aware of the late hour—I ask the Minister to confirm one or two things in the draft guidance that she circulated at the end of this morning’s sitting. Paragraph 8 of the draft guidance, on page 2, says:
“The Government does, however, wish to ensure that a number of safeguards around Trusts are put in place. All Trusts will be charitable and will have to have specified charitable objects around the advancement of education.”
That is a good thing to have in the guidance. Will the Minister confirm that the Government do not intend to remove education as a charitable objective? To do so would make the whole guidance meaningless. Education should continue to be one of the tenets that make up charitable objectives in the Charities Acts.
The Minister cites two statutory instruments in paragraph 8, both of which are dated 2007. When are they likely to be published in draft?

Sarah Teather: I shall speak briefly in support of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bury, North, which go to the heart of accountability. We believe that governing bodies should be representative of parents and the local community. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton implied that we cannot have trusts without giving them majority control of governing bodies, but I do not see why that should necessarily be the case. We would never argue that the majority of the governing body of a community school should be LEA representatives. Instead, we would argue that a substantial proportion of governors should be parent governors and other representatives of the community. I do not see why that case should not be made for trust schools and new foundation schools.
The argument that there would be an unwieldy number on the governing body is entirely circular. Surely, of all the people to whom a school should be accountable, the most important are parents whose children attend that school. The provisions for parent councils are a mere sop; they do not give them the real accountability for decision making that we want the governing body to have. We hope that the hon. Member for Bury, North will press the amendment to a vote. If he chooses not to, we will oppose its withdrawal.

Jacqui Smith: There has been some interesting discussion on the amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North focused his concern on the role and engagement of parents. I will come back to how we will ensure that that is maintained.
The hon. Members for Brent, East and for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton have come at the issue from different directions, but both focused on the implications of the amendments, which is to prevent the charitable foundation of a trust school from appointing the majority of governors. The hon. Lady argued that that is her intention: it is what she wants to happen, but that is a fundamental problem with the amendments. We believe that appointing the majority of governors is one way in which a charitable foundation can strengthen the leadership and governance of a school. We want to extend to all schools the freedom to shape their own destiny that has helped voluntary and foundation schools to succeed.
My hon. Friend accepted the fact that voluntary aided schools currently have a majority of their governors appointed by a charitable foundation. Such schools are doing well. He did not accept that point, but asked me to provide evidence of the impact of that process. We have already provided evidence to the Education and Skills Committee that they are doing particularly well, including in the most disadvantaged areas. In voluntary aided schools where more than 20 per cent. of pupils are on free school meals, 47.6 per cent. achieve five or more A* to C GCSEs, rather than 40.6 per cent. in other schools. Such cases represent one piece of evidence that could support the argument that the impact of the external charitable organisation having a majority on the governing body has helped improve quality.
The important point is that we are not arguing that any school has to take on a trust, nor are we arguing that having taken on a trust, or by considering taking on a trust, any school must allow a trust to make up a majority of the governing body. We are arguing that there may be many circumstances in which that is the most appropriate way to ensure the most effective delivery of the support for leadership and governance in the school and the contribution that the trust can make to that governance, which is at the heart of what we are trying to achieve in the trust proposals.

John Hayes: The Minister will accept that once she argued precisely that. The White Paper says:
“At the heart of this new vision are Trust schools. We will encourage all primary and secondary schools to be self-governing and to require a Trust.”
When and why did she change her mind?

Jacqui Smith: I have not changed my mind. I am making a distinction between compulsion and flexibility and enabling. The legislation is all about allowing schools to move in the direction that we believe to be the most effective, which is spelled out in the White Paper. Some of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues wanted to promote a compulsory approach to trust schools, but by building on the arguments about school autonomy that have previously been so important to Opposition Members, we are providing schools with that decision-making ability. We argue that where a school believes that the needs of pupils will be better met by the additional drive and enthusiasm that the appointment of the majority of a school’s governors a trust can bring, we should not deprive pupils of that opportunity.
We have repeatedly made it clear that no school will be forced to acquire a trust or to allow the trust to appoint a majority of its governors. The legislation is enabling rather than prescriptive in this regard because we believe that such decisions are best made locally, in accordance with local circumstances and the particular needs of each school. It will be for the governing body of a school to decide whether to acquire a foundation and whether that foundation should appoint the majority of governors. That will happen in accordance with the statutory guidance that I have made available to the Committee today, which will place the process in an important context of local accountability and the transparency of the proposals. The process will make clear the criteria that the decision makers—in this case, the governing body—should bear in mind when making that particular decision.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton asked a couple of questions about the guidance. I can reassure him that one of the reasons for choosing the advancement of education is that it is a charitable object and will remain so. His second question concerned the regulations mentioned in the guidance. That is a reference to sets of regulations that I have already distributed to the Committee. They are the illustrative regulations relating to clauses 17 to 22 and to clause 31. We are determined to ensure that that governing bodies have the choice of allowing their trusts to appoint the minority or majority of governors if they believe that that is right for their school.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North raised an important point on trust school models that also relates to what was said by the hon. Member for Brent, East. That model retains the stakeholder model of governance that has been at the heart of governance of maintained schools. It is part of the reason why conflict between a majority of foundation governors and other governors arises, because we are clear that there should continue to be elected parent representatives and local authority representation, and that there should continue to be community and staff representation, even in circumstances in which the foundation has a majority on the governing body.
Whether there is a majority or a minority, parents will continue to play an important role, both as members of the governing body—whether elected, or appointed by the trust—and on parent councils. We need to recognise, however, that it is not always that easy to get parents to stand for election to governing bodies in the numbers that we want, so we need to have a wide range of ways to engage parents and hear their voices—not just in trust schools but in schools more widely.
Parents will continue to constitute one third of the governing body in a trust school, as in all maintained schools. If a trust appoints the majority of governors we shall require trust schools to establish a parent council with an advisory and consultative role. The governing body will also have a duty to consult the parent council on the conduct of the school. So we are protecting the interests of parents in trust schools—arguably we are actually broadening parents’ ability to have an impact, because parent councils in particular will provide an important forum for parents to contribute to their own child’s education and to contribute in improving the school system. The evidence suggests that they are a more accessible way to involve parents in decisions about the school because they are more informal and involve less commitment, and can involve more parents than the governing body.

Sarah Teather: Does the Minister not recognise that there is a difference between the onus to consult parents and a vote on a governing body?

Jacqui Smith: Of course there is, but does the hon. Lady accept that two or three elected parent governors, important though they might be, should not be the beginning and the end of parental representation and engagement in our schools? My point is that we need a range of ways for parents to be engaged, and our proposals on trust schools will provide more opportunity for parents to have an impact while maintaining important roles on the governing body.

Annette Brooke: It sounds as though there is a trade-off between the parents’ council and the number of parent governors. Personally, I am very supportive of parent councils, but I do not like trade-offs whereby we have fewer elected parent governors. Why can we not have both?

Jacqui Smith: Let me go back to first principles. Let me first remind hon. Members that a third of governing bodies must be composed of parents, regardless of the status of the school. I explained to the hon. Lady why it is not possible to have both a majority of foundation governors on a governing body and at the same time have all of the one third as elected parent governors. To some extent the hon. Lady is right, but we are increasing parents’ ability to engage in schools where the foundation is able to appoint a majority of the governing body.
I have made the arguments as to why there will be cases when the trust, having the majority of the governing body, will be crucial in helping to drive the governance of the school. Alongside that, we are ensuring that the realistic ability of parents to have a voice and to contribute to the school is protectedand, in many cases, enhanced. Of course, parental engagement is one issue that governing bodies will consider when deciding whether to become a trust school. Governing bodies must have the flexibility to make those choices in light of local circumstances.
As we have discussed previously and will no doubt discuss again, we have built in safeguards in respect of trust acquisition and of trusts appointing a majority of the governors. For the first time, we are providing in legislation for a governing body to be able to remove a trust or to move from a trust appointing a majority of the governors to a trust appointing a minority of the governors if there is dissatisfaction with how the trust is performing.
The provisions in the Bill are well balanced. They provide the right level of flexibility for schools to take the right decisions about the best model for them. The necessary safeguards are built in, including a mechanism for removing a trust or its ability to appoint a majority of the governing body if the governing body feels that that is best. I therefore hope, not least because my voice is becoming a little weak, that my hon. Friends will agree not to press the amendments, which would be unnecessarily restrictive.

David Chaytor: I shall make two points in reply. First, underlying the debate is the anxiety that some people would have about why the trust needed a majority on the governing body. By and large, governing bodies have operated on the basis of a degree of consensus. Those with particular views about the direction of a school or about the staffing policy in a school have been forced to persuade a majority of the governors to agree to the policy. The fear is that, with a built-in majority, there will be no need to persuade; there will be a need simply to assert and vote. I am sure that the Minister would accept that that concern is legitimate.
My other point is that, as the Bill is written, the outgoing governing body would decide, first, whether the trust option was to be pursued and, secondly, if the trust option were pursued, whether the trust should have a majority or a minority on the new governing body. In one respect, the outgoing governing body, which presumably by definition has failed to give leadership to the school, is the group of people least well qualified to decide what the future composition of the governing body should be. Perhaps the Minister will consider whether a wider group of people needs to be involved in the decision. If there is to be the majority option for the trust, a wider group of people needs to be involved in the decision. Perhaps at the point of decision, both about trust status and about the trust having a majority on the new governing body, the wider group of parents should be involved. However, I leave that for the Minister to consider.

Jacqui Smith: It might be useful at this point to remind my hon. Friend that, as we spell out in the guidance, either the decision for the acquisition of a trust or the decision to allow a trust to take a majority of the governing body could be referred to the adjudicator by the local authority on the basis that we set out in the guidance.

David Chaytor: I understand that, but the adjudicator is going to be a very busy man with all the references that he will have to take. It would be far better for the issue to be resolved by consensus at school level, within the existing parent body and perhaps with the consultation of others, than to force yet another decision right up the chain of command to the adjudicator. However, given that it is 19.34—very late—I do not want to press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Hon. Members: No!

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 13.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Cawsey.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Eight o’clock till Thursday 27 April at Nine o’clock.